Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

UNITED REFORMED CHURCH BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

National Union of School Students

Mr. Orme: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what communications she has received from the National Union of School Students concerning Government policy on education; and whether she will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): None, Sir.

Mr. Orme: Is the Secretary of State aware of the legitimate aspirations of many young people to be consulted and to be treated in an adult manner in our society? Will she encourage this process with headmasters, teachers' representatives and school children, particularly as the school leaving age will be raised to 16? This subject will come up more and more in the coming years.

Mrs. Thatcher: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question. Many

teachers are very well aware of these facts and realise that their senior pupils should be treated as young adults rather than as young adolescents.

Mr. McCrindle: Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State convinced that the student members of the union are responsible for its actions, or does she believe that others who have long since left school are directing its activities?

Mrs. Thatcher: I have no knowledge of this particular union but I think it is important that young people at school, who are maturing rather faster than formerly, should have opportunities to express their views and should have some sense of responsibility.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, what public funds have been provided for the launching of the National Union of School Students.

Mrs. Thatcher: None so far as I am aware.

Mr. Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any new organisation, if it grows, should rely on voluntary subscribed income and that insofar as any other body, for example the National Union of Students, may wish to contribute, this contribution should clearly be seen to come from its own resources and should contain no element derived or possibly derived from public funds?

Mrs. Thatcher: It would be difficult to trace the precise source of moneys. As far as I am aware, the National Union of School Students has received to date £1,000 in assistance in kind from the National Union of Students. It would be difficult to trace any of that to public money. But I agree with the general sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend.

James Report

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a further report on the consultations on the James Report.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): My Department has now almost completed a preliminary round of discussions at official level with the


bodies most closely concerned. These discussions are proving of great value in clarifying the principal issues arising from the report.

Mr. Willey: I fully appreciate the difficulties of getting as much agreement as possible but is the Under-Secretary aware that we seem to be losing momentum? We are all agreed that there is need of a radical improvement in teacher training. Will the hon. Gentleman do what he can to expedite consideration of the report and, if necessary, get partial agreement upon it upon which the Government can act?

Mr. van Straubenzee: There is no loss of momentum. The right hon. Gentleman will know better than most the very large number of bodies which have an absolute right to express a view. The next stage, which is not very long away, is the round of personal consultations by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: Can my hon. Friend say whether the consultations are revealing a growing body of opinion in favour of the possible extension of the proposed Diploma of Higher Education to rather wider uses than those of purely teacher training, and can he say something about validation?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I would prefer to avoid speculation about any threads of agreement which might be beginning to emerge. There is a wide variety of views on both the points mentioned by my hon. Friend, and those views have already been expressed.

Mr. Moyle: As the Secretary of State is receiving a tremendous number of representations, may I ask in an entirely non-partisan way for an assurance that real consultations are taking place and that the representations are being discussed with the various bodies making them? Would it be possible for the Secretary of State to put her statistical branch on to producing a report of projections based on various assumptions about how the teacher-training problem might be solved? This might assist the consultations.

Mr. van Straubenzee: In reply to the first half of the question, the answer is quite definitely and absolutely "Yes".

The consultations are absolutely meaningful. On the second half, there are later Questions on the Order Paper on statistics and I must be careful not to trespass on them.

Primary Education in Urban Areas (Expenditure)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will increase expenditure on primary education in urban areas for improving environmental standards.

Mrs. Thatcher: The £210 million already announced for 1972–76 for improving and replacing old primary schools will yield environmental as well as educational benefits.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the right hon. Lady aware that under Home Office Circular 247 of 1971, local authorities were asked for suggestions for projects to give children from environmentally deprived areas a break? Is she aware that every single scheme from Warwickshire was turned down? I refer in particular to that submitted by Nuneaton Borough Council for Chilvers Coton School. If she cannot use some of the money she has just mentioned for such projects, will she have a word with the Home Secretary to see whether he will do something about this matter in Warwickshire, and particularly in Nuneaton?

Mrs. Thatcher: The purpose of the money I have announced is the improvement of old primary schools; money under the urban aid programme which is allocated to my Department is given almost wholly to nursery schools and nursery classes. That is a very important priority. In addition, we have some money for the Youth Service, a greater proportion of which is being switched into the deprived areas this time.

Work Experience Schemes

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made to wards enabling 15-year-old children to take part in work experience schemes.

Mrs. Thatcher: Legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Those


in my constituency, of whom there are many, including myself, who have always opposed raising the school-leaving age will be relieved with her reply and will be glad to know that children will be able to take part in work experience. I hope this will be in conjunction with the colleges of further education, of which I have a particularly good example in my constituency.

Mrs. Thatcher: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. The work experience schemes are valued by teachers and pupils alike. It would be to our greatest advantage if we could procure the legislation by Easter, 1973, but it is not within my power to promise that.

Mr. Marks: Will not "as soon as parliamentary time permits" be too late? Are not the children now able to go on work experience schemes those who stay on voluntarily for a fifth year, and will not they be unable to go after September because of the regulations, unless the regulations are altered?

Mrs. Thatcher: Work experience schemes normally apply for one year before the compulsory school-leaving age. I am therefore advised that the relevant point to secure legislation would be Easter, 1973.

National Youth Brass Band of Great Britain

Mr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will request the Arts Council of Great Britain to accept the subsidy responsibility of the National Youth Brass Band of Great Britain in the same manner as she did with the National Youth Orchestra and other organisations concerned with the musical education of young people.

Mr. van Stranbenzee: Grants to individual organisations are a matter for the Arts Council.

Mr. Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Arts Council gives an annual grant to the National Youth Orchestra because it received a request from his Department to do so? Does he also realise that the National Youth Brass Band has asked for parity with the National Youth Orchestra? Will he reconsider the matter, because the brass

band movement has a great deal of cultural support in many parts of the country?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I should not want any answer of mine to be taken for one moment as making comparisons, certainly not derogatory comparisons, between the National Youth Orchestra and the National Youth Brass Band. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the decision to support the orchestra was taken in the lifetime of the last Government. I make no point of that, but it was taken then, and therefore I cannot know what pressures, if any, were exerted. The hon. Gentleman's request is essentially one which must be addressed to the Arts Council.

Mr. Faulds: Does not the hon. Gentleman comprehend that the obdurate attitude to which he seems to be a party smacks very simply of social discrimination?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I think the hon. Gentleman is wildly out of date, because any cloth cap image there may have been to brass as such certainly does not exist today.

Hayes Primary School, Kent

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what reply she has sent to the letter written to her on 5th May, 1972 by parents of children attending Hayes Primary School, Hayes, Kent, regarding conditions at this school.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I have seen my hon. Friend a copy of the reply.

Mr. Hunt: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his courtesy in sending me a copy of that reply. Is he aware that in the Hayes area of my constituency there is deep parental involvement in education and that many parents feel that their children, because of overcrowding, are not getting a fair start at the school? May I therefore persuade him to whisper in Bromley's ear that it might be a good idea to consider the allocation of part of its quite generous minor works allocation to the provision of additional accommodation at Hayes Primary School?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I shall resist temptations to whisper in the ear of


Bromley or anyone else. I shall leave the shouting to be done by my hon. Friend. To be fair to Bromley, he will recall that one of the reasons for the problem—I make no compliaint of it—is its general policy in relation to the size of classes. That is a very respectable argument from its point of view.

Corsbie Hall School

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice she has given to local education authorities about the sending of handicapped children to Corsbie Hall School in Fife, following the decision of the Scottish Education Department to register the school as satisfactory.

Mrs. Thatcher: None, apart from allowing the Oldham local education authority to keep at the school the four children it had already sent there, as I pointed out in my reply to a Question by the hon. Member of 11th May.—[Vol. 836, c. 1536–7.]

Mr. Hamilton: Has the right hon. Lady seen the latest letter I received from the Scottish Education Department saying that following the registration of the school there has been a serious deterioration in the staffing structure, including the departure of the head and one or two other teachers, to such a degree that that Department has warned local education authorities in Scotland to have a look at the school and to consider withdrawing their children? In the coming session, if the staffing qualifications are not satisfactory, will she issue the same instruction to the English education authorities, which are continually sending their children to the school?

Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir. The question does not arise until I am asked to give guidance in respect of a particular school by a particular local education authority. If conditions have changed since my right hon. Friend registered the school, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that matter to my right hon. Friend. I have no jurisdiction whatever over the registration of schools in Scotland.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order. In view of the extremely complacent attitude of the right hon. Lady to the matter, I shall seek to raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Community Service

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will arrange for the Inspectorate to promote the study of methods of encouraging community service in schools.

Mrs. Thatcher: HM Inspectors have regard to school-based community service activities in the course of their normal duties and give advice to local education authorities and schools.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Secretary of State aware that more than 1,500 Sheffield secondary school children undertake community service in their own time each year, and that 25 per cent., of the city's comprehensives encourage some form of social work by their pupils in school time? Does she not think that the time has arrived to investigate the educational opportunities provided by such work, and more particularly to relate it to areas of study within the schools?

Mrs. Thatcher: I know that a large number of schools of all kinds have community service as part of their curriculum, and the inspectors collect information on it in the course of their duties. The Schools Council is considering proposals for projects for curriculum development in voluntary service, so the hon. Gentleman may be well satisfied that we are aware of the possibilities in this area.

School Transport (Working Party)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she now expects the working party on school transport provisions to produce their report.

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she now expects to receive the report of the working party which is reviewing the arrangements for free school transport.

Mrs. Thatcher: As I said in my Answer to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) on 13th April, it is too early to forecast how long the working party will take to complete its work.—[Vol. 834, c. 1419.]

Mr. Skinner: As the working party's terms of reference include the high cost of travelling just inside the three-mile area, does not the Secretary of State think


it absurd for local education authorities such as Derbyshire to stick to the rigidity of that Section of the Education Act which results, certainly in one instance in my constituency, in children having to travel over bleak, remote countryside just inside the three-mile limit or having to pay as much as £1·20 in bus fares? Does not she think there should be less rigidity in the remaining few months until the working party issues its report?

Mrs. Thatcher: There is not a great deal of rigidity, because local education authorities have discretion to pay transport fares within the statutory limits. It is up to them whether they exercise that power.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of urgency for the resolving of this problem? This matter has been on the stocks for a long time and there is a great deal of dissatisfaction, as has already been shown by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Will my right hon. Friend do everything she can to expedite the report so that it is issued before the end of the Summer recess?

Mrs. Thatcher: It is important that the working party should be able to do a thorough job. A good deal of information has to be acquired. But I will bring the remarks of my hon. Friend and of the hon. Member for Bolsover to the attention of the working party.

Comprehensive Education (Bolton)

Mr. Laurance Reed: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what criteria she intends to use in accepting or rejecting schemes for comprehensive education in Bolton that will be submitted to her by the newly elected council.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Each proposal is judged on its merits and in the light of any objections which may be made. General criteria were set out in Circular 10/70.

Mr. Reed: May I ask my hon. Friend to pay special heed to objectivity in consultations which may take place with parents and teachers, and also to the fact that the existing system in Bolton produces exceptional academic results to the benefit of a large number of children from poorer homes?

Mr. van Straubenzee: If the inference of that supplementary question is that I think that there may not be objective consultation, that obviously would be a very proper ground for making objection to my right hon. Friend when and if the time comes.

Mr. Whitehead: If each scheme is judged on its merits, why has no reply to the scheme submitted to the Department by Derby been forthcoming for many months, although the local authority—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question is about Bolton.

Mr. Redmond: When my hon. Friend gets representations from the new Corporation of Bolton, will he bear in mind that at the recent election the majority of people voted Conservative and were therefore against any change in the education system in the borough?

Mr. van Straubenzee: That merely shows how very high in our estimation are the people of Bolton.

Mr. Marks: In considering these proposals, will the hon. Gentleman consider also the recent report by the National Foundation for Educational Research on comprehensive schools, which suggested that evidence against large schools is negligible and that children above average ability do not suffer through being with less able children?

Mr. van Straubenzee: Obviously, all reports of this nature and of any kind are under constant scrutiny. But in the short space of question and answer, I must say that I do not think that the conclusions are quite as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Pupil-Teacher Ratio

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the expected numbers of pupils and teachers, and the resulting pupil-teacher ratio, in maintained schools in England and Wales in the year 1983 given that there is no change in current policy.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I regret that I cannot usefully add to my answer to a Question by the hon. Member on 22nd May.—[Vol. 837, c. 289–90.]

Mr. Spearing: But that Question asked for the figures up to 1983 and the hon. Gentleman gave only the figures up to 1976 on the ground that that was the furthest that the national expenditure survey had gone. Would not he agree that if the consultations referred to earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) are to be meaningful, the figure for 1983 should be published? Will he also agree that the figure is likely to be in the ratio of 17 to 18 pupils per teacher? Is not this a reasonable aim if the present system is continued?

Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman may feel on reflection that he has not done justice to my answer of 22nd May, in which I set out the reasons why it would not be meaningful to make a longer projection. I shall not enter into any speculation about the figures in the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the numbers of teachers and pupils in primary and secondary schools in January 1972; and what is her estimate of the numbers for January, 1976.

Mr. van Straubenzee: In January, 1972, there was the equivalent of 388,500 full-time teachers in maintained schools and about 8,391,000 pupils. In 1976 I expect the respective numbers to be 453,000 and 9,072,000.

Mr. Marks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that discussion and consultation on the James Report is extremely difficult unless he produces all the figures that were made available to the James Committee? Is he taking into account when he publishes pupil-teacher ratios the point that first-year teachers will be working for only 80 per cent. of the time?

Mr. van Straubenzee: All the considerations such as those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are given a weighting in arriving at the estimates I have given. With the forward figures which have already been made public, I would have thought that discussion could be very meaningful indeed.

Sir R. Cary: Can my hon. Friend say whether, following the excellent plans

announced at the beginning of the Session to help primary schools, a greater number of teachers have been attracted into those schools?

Mr. van Straubenzee: There is some encouraging evidence, particularly with some of the better qualified people, that they are beginning to think very seriously in terms of primary schools and are no longer simply regarding them as below their competence, remembering that it is an important sector of our education.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is the teacher quota a minimum or maximum these days?

Mr. van Straubenzee: It is a general guidance figure.

Teachers (Superannuation)

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how the teachers' pension fund is invested.

Mrs. Thatcher: There is no invested fund. Interest is credited to the account at a rate fixed by reference to that obtainable from long-dated government stocks. The benefits and any post-retirement increases are paid from the Exchequer.

Mr. Jessel: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the rate is not equivalent to only about 3½ per cent? Is not that a quite unnecessarily low yield which is not as advantageous to retired teachers as might be the case? Will she take another look at what is produced for the retired teachers?

Mrs. Thatcher: The rate of interest varies with the conditions. There have been times when it has been as low as 3½ per cent., times when it has been 5½ per cent., and times when it has been even higher. The terms of reference are such that the rate varies according to prevailing conditions. My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is a working party still sitting which has secured agreement on certain points and is to report shortly.

Mr. Bagier: Is it possible that the superannuation fund is not being invested correctly and that that is therefore partially responsible for the fact that the teacher contribution from salary towards it is higher than for many other sections of the public service?

Mrs. Thatcher: In part that is true. It is higher than for some other sections of public service—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has the local government sector particularly in mind. But the minimum retirement age of teachers is a good deal lower.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has plans to improve the workings of the teachers' superannuation scheme.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Improvements have recently been agreed by the working party which has been reviewing all aspects of the teachers' superannuation scheme. Regulations will be laid before the House in due course.

Mr. Archer: I thank my hon. Friend for the reply. Will he assure the House that he will keep this matter under review at all times, as it influences the standard of our teachers?

Mr. van Straubenzee: Yes, Sir, in accordance with the required procedures. I think my hon. Friend will find, when he studies the scheme, that it contains some significant advances for the teaching profession.

Mr. Bagier: What approaches has the hon. Gentleman had from the teaching profession, who consider that there is dissimilarity between the Civil Service scheme which is non-contributory, the local government scheme in which the contribution is 6 per cent., and the proposed teachers' scheme in which the contribution is 6½ per cent.? Have any proposals been put to the teachers which provide for parity between teachers and others?

Mr. van Straubenzee: The basis of at least one scheme mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, as has been explained earlier, is very different from that of the teachers' scheme. I hope he will feel that the recommendations of the working party to be made to the Government will be a significant advance.

School Children (Health)

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the general level of health amongst school children; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, in general. Of the children examined at periodic school medical inspections in recent years fewer than one in 300 has been found to be in unsatisfactory physical condition.

Mr. Carter: Is the right hon. Lady aware that in a recent survey of a section of school children in Birmingham, a quite disturbing health deficiency was found? As in Birmingham there has been an alarming drop in the number of school meals, coupled with the fact we have discontinued the free supply of school milk, does not the right hon. Lady think that the time is right for a very careful and full survey amongst all school children into the general state of their health?

Mrs. Thatcher: The Chief Medical Officer makes a report every second year on the health of school children and on the school health services in general. The report to which the hon. Gentleman refers concerned the health of some 500 or 600 children aged between 14 and 17 in secondary schools. Any action I might have taken in withdrawing free milk has nothing to do with that, because free milk was withdrawn from secondary school children by legislation passed by the last Government. My only action in connection with it was to make milk available to secondary school children on sale.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Recognising that of the 600 sampled school children up to 25 per cent. have the disease of rickets, according to biochemical and clinical analysis, and since Dr. Cook, one of the foremost consultant physicians, is awaiting £4,000 so that his investigation can go into greater detail, will my righthon. Friend consult the Department of Health and Social Security about this matter, which is causing deep consternation in Birmingham?

Mrs. Thatcher: Of course I will. I remind my hon. Friend that the Under-secretary of State for Health and Social Security has answered a Question on this, pointing out that all the evidence is being currently considered by the local health authority and officers of his Department, and also by the school medical service. We are concerned about this report and are already considering its impact.

Miss Lestor: When studying the health of school children, will the right hon. Lady pay particular attention to the state


of the teeth of young children, which are probably worse now than they have ever been? Will she consider it in relation to diet provided and to the lack of nutrition we are hearing about?

Mrs. Thatcher: All these matters should be taken into account. As the hon. Lady knows, a working party is sitting on all aspects of the school meals and refreshment services, so the matter will be considered in relation to food and refreshment provided through the schools. It is a very wide issue, as the hon. Lady knows.

School Meals (Standards)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps she has taken to deal with the problem of school meals which fall below the standards set by the Department of Health in the 33 schools which provided less than 25 per cent. of the recommended intake of energy and the nine schools providing less than 20 per cent., as shown in the information sent to her by the hon. Member for Willesden, West.

Mrs. Thatcher: The survey carried out a year ago by a team from Queen Elizabeth College, London, was limited to a small number of schools in the area of a single local education authority which has already taken action to put things right where they appear to be wrong.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the right hon. Lady aware that if this happened in just one small area, it may well be happening in other areas? Will she expedite the inquiry and do all she can to ensure that the standards laid down by the Department of Health and Social Security are adhered to, not only in questions of energy but in the balance of the meal? Will she look again at the problems of school milk, which is part of a balanced diet?

Mrs. Thatcher: This survey was carried out at the request of the local education authority in whose area it took place. The local education authority received it and took action where it thought necessary. The survey was not of the food issued, which is what our advice refers to, but of the food consumed by the children, which is a rather different point. It is important that the school meals inquiry should do a thorough job, and I

fear that it will take some time before it reports.

School Building (Costs)

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will state the latest estimates of percentage increased costs for school building.

Mrs. Thatcher: School building cost variations are reflected in periodic changes in cost limits, which have been increased by about 43 per cent. since 1967.

Mr. Ashton: Why will the Minister not give the answer for the last 12 months? Is it not a fact that house building costs have gone up by 22 per cent. due to the rise in the price of land and building costs? Has not the price of school building gone up by much the same proportion? Does she intend to cut back on standards if the cost of school building goes up as much as the cost of housing?

Mrs. Thatcher: If the hon. Gentleman wants the figures for the last 12 to 14 months he may have them. In April, 1971, I increased the cost limits by 13 per cent. In April, 1972, I increased the limits by a further 15 per cent. School building has to take place within the cost limits.

Mr. Spearing: Would the right hon. Lady agree that as this has to be within the cost limits it is right that extra costs should be allowed where building costs are highest, such as in London? Would she reconsider that point?

Mrs. Thatcher: No. Our evidence is that there are certain schools in rural areas, for which the materials have to be transported a long way, where the costs are every bit as high as in the central city areas. Where particular casts are involved because of the difficulties of the site, special arrangements are already made.

Local Education Authorities (Size)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations she has had concerning the size of local education authorities proposed in the Local Government Bill.

Mrs. Thatcher: Following the publication of the Government's White Paper in February 1971 there was a period of nine months in which all concerned had ample opportunity of making their views known. Many factors have to be considered in deciding the size of local education authorities.

Mr. Dormand: Does the right hon. Lady not agree that the larger the local education authority—and some of the new proposed local education authorities will be very large indeed—the greater the need for the delegation of some powers to elected authorities? Is she aware that the Local Government Bill abolishes all delegation and that for a personal service such as education this is a completely retrograde act? Would she impress upon all concerned that provision ought to be made in the Bill for delegation for the reason I have given and also to avoid the farcial situation in which major cities such as Bristol, Hull, Nottingham, Leicester and so on will have no educational functions of any kind?

Mrs. Thatcher: I know that this matter has been debated during the passage of the Local Government Bill on several occasions. It is true that statutory delegation goes, but it is my intention when the Bill has passed through all its stages, to give guidance in a circular about the administration of education with a view to giving as much of a say locally as possible.

Mr. James Johnson: Since Hull has been mentioned, may I ask the right hon. Lady whether she has any idea of the sociological and geographical divisions of the new non-metropolitan Humberside county? Does she realise that the two banks are not yet linked by a bridge and that there are wide open spaces in Lincolnshire? Will she think again and use her influence to bring about the linking into local education administration units of places such as Scunthorpe and Grimsby, as well as the North Bank?

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not have the details in mind, but within the 1944 Education Act there is power to amalgamate local education authorities into a joint committee.

The Arts (Government Policy)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a further statement of Government policy on the Arts in the light of recent developments.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I cannot usefully add to the reply I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member on 13th April.—[Vol. 834, c. 1413.]

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Now that the Prime Minister has established that the Philistines are sitting opposite and that we are the party of the beautiful people—[Laughter.]—can my hon. Friend tell us what plans the Government have for special aid to British orchestras, which are likely to meet increased competition from their heavily subsidised continental counterparts when we enter the Common Market?

Mr. van Straubenzee: This is essentially a question for the Arts Council, which is charged by this House with disbursing these funds. It is doubtful whether members of the main British orchestras would want to become full-time, salaried players, as is the position with a number of their continental counterparts.

Mr. Strauss: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the best contribution he and his colleagues on the Front Bench could make to the arts in this country and the public appreciation of the arts is to refrain, before it is too late, from imposing an entrance tax on those who wish to see our national treasures?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I find that a large number of people see very clearly that this Measure, combined with greatly increased resources for our museums and galleries, makes a great deal of sense.

Mr. Faulds: Knowing the talent for toadying of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) who is perhaps more beatific than beautiful—is it surprising that we saw this as a planted Question and, as I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) assumed, we thought that the opportunity was to be taken of announcing the abandonment of that miserable, mean little Measure, the Museums and Galleries Admission Charges Bill? Does


the hon. Gentleman realise that when we form the next Government—as we undoubtedly shall—we shall make it speedily clear to the trustees, whose responsibility such matters are, that we shall welcome their decision to abandon this piddling little scheme?

Mr. van Straubenzee: That supplementary question shows that the hon. Gentleman does not listen, because on the last occasion he asked me exactly the same question I explained that such a move would never be made at Question Time, and I suspect that it would not be made at that time by any subsequent Government. However, we are apparently talking about the next Government from the other side of the House and have therefore moved into the realms of fantasy. Perhaps we should get on.

Children Remaining at School

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current percentage of children staying on at school beyond the ages, respectively, of 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 years in each of the Department's regions.

Mr. van Straubenzee: As the Answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate the information in the Official Report.

Mr. Meacher: Does not the Minister agree that the slow down in closing the gap in the timing of school leaving between children in the North and in the

PERCENTAGE OF PUPILS REMAINING AT SCHOOL BEYOND THE STATUTORY LEAVING AGE*


Maintained schools (excluding special schools and immigrant centres) January, 1971









Boys and Girls aged


Region
15
16
17
18
19


North
…
…
…
…
…
…
48·5
27·6
15·4
5·2
0·3


Yorkshire and Humberside
…
…
…
50·3
29·8
17·0
5·9
0·4


East Midlands
…
…
…
…
…
49·4
27·8
15·3
5·1
0·3


East Anglia
…
…
…
…
…
52·4
27·1
14·2
4·5
0·3


South East (including Greater London)
…
65·1
39·7
21·2
7·0
0·6


SouthWest
…
…
…
…
…
62·1
33·3
17·7
5·3
1·4


West Midlands
…
…
…
…
…
53·5
29·4
15·2
5·2
1·4


North West
…
…
…
…
…
49·8
27·7
14·5
5·0
0·3


Wales
…
…
…
…
…
…
52·5
35·7
21·5
8·2
1·0


England and Wales
…
…
…
…
56·3
32·9
17·8
6·0
0·5


* 15-year-old pupils with birthdays between 1st January and 1st September inclusive, expressed as a percentage of the estimated number of 13-year-old pupils two years earlier.


The number of pupils aged 16, 17, 18 and 19 expressed as a percentage of the 13-year-old pupils three, four, five and six years earlier, respectively.

South is largely due to the almost total cutback in renewing and rebuilding secondary schools? Does not this indicate that exclusive concentration on primary schools was devised to make sure that inequalities of education were bound to increase at the crucial later stages?

Mr. van Straubenzee: No, Sir. This argument cannot be sustained for one moment, if only because the trends and differences between regions go back far beyond the period covered by the recent and rightful concentration on the replacement of old primary schools. What the hon. Gentleman will find—and here I think he and I can agree—is that the figures are a total justification for the decision to raise the compulsory school-leaving age this year.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the only way to ensure equality of opportunity is by providing decent primary schools so that children can have a fair start instead of trying to botch up schemes at the other end of school life when the damage has been done and children from poor homes have not an equal chance with children of the middle class?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The evidence is overwhelming that a child given a good start at the primary stage has a running advantage, from whatever home he comes.

Following is the information:

Direct Grant Schools

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will state the number of direct grant schools in existence in 1964, 1969 and 1971; the total sum in grant for each of these three years; the grant per pupil for each of these three years; and the grant per pupil in real terms for each of these years.

Mr. van Straubenzee: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate the information in the Official Report.

Mr. McCrindle: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the country gets a good bargain in the direct grant schools'. 'If that is so, will he consider extending the number of direct grant schools so that more children from an ordinary background may be given the opportunity of a splendid education at such an institution?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I join my hon. Friend in a tribute to the work done in the educational service as a whole by the direct grant schools, but that is a different matter from adding to their list, at least at present.

Following is the information:

DIRECT GRANT GRDAMMAR SCHOOLS (ENGLAND AND WALES)



Financial years



19646–5
1969–70
1971–72


Number of schools
179
178
176


Total grant paid in the year (including remitted fees)
£6·7m.
£6·2m.
£7·6m.


Annual grant rate per pupil:



(a) all pupils
£45
£32
£42*


(b) additional sixth form grant
£84
£84
£84


Average grant per pupil (excluding remitted fees):



(a) at current prices
£63
£52
£63


(b) at 1971–72 prices
£99
£63
£63


* The rate at the beginning of the year was £32 per annum. A supplement of £10 was paid in December, 1971.

Sub-standard Schools

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, if she will set up an inquiry to consider

the effects upon pupils and teachers of working in schools with sub-standard conditions.

Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir.

Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Lady aware that poor school conditions frequently have a depressive effect upon attainment and teaching? Does she agree that in many working-class areas the school building regulations are not enforced?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am aware that poor conditions can have that effect, and that is why we have the largest ever improvements programme for schools.

Governing Bodies (Pupil Members)

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities have indicated to her that they wish to appoint pupils to the governing bodies of schools in their area; and what advice she has given.

Mrs. Thatcher: Two, both in relation to county schools. In such cases the appointment of governors and the constitution of governing bodies are matters for the local education authorities; but I have offered them the advice that the appointment as governors of persons under the age of 18 would appear to be unlawful.

Mr. Mitchell: I thank the right hon. Lady for her reply, but will she do her best to ensure that pupils are not appointed to governing bodies on which teachers are not represented?

Mrs. Thatcher: I have under consideration the question whether teachers should be able to serve as governors of their own schools, but there appear to be legal as well as other problems.

Primary Schools (Swindon)

Mr. David Stoddart: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the standard of primary school accommodation in Swindon; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. van Straubenzee: It is the responsibility of the Wiltshire local education authority in the first instance to ensure


that the accommodation in their schools is satisfactory.

Mr. Stodart: Has not the Minister a responsibility to see that local education authorities are doing their job properly, and is he aware that Clifton Primary School, in my constituency, built in 1875, is a disgraceful slum school? Will he not call for a full report on this building from the Wiltshire education authority?

Mr. van Straubenzee: No, Sir, I will not call for a special report from this or any other authority in respect of a school of this kind. The hon. Gentleman's question emphasises the wisdom of concentrating on the pre-1903 primary schools for the replacement programme.

Teachers (Employment After Retiring Age)

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will encourage local education authoirties to make use of teachers over the retirement age who are able to offer subjects for which there is a shortage of suitably qualified younger members of the profession.

Mrs. Thatcher: Local education authorities are quite free to employ after the age of 60, which is the minimum pensionable age, suitable teachers whose services they need and who are willing to continue.

Miss Fookes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will she give encouragement to local authorities who do not do so, or are not always willing to do so, to employ such teachers? I have in mind a particular case, not in my own local authority area.

Mrs. Thatcher: I hope that local education authorities will continue to employ these people, especially in subjects in which there is a shortage of teachers. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this point.

Oral Answers to Questions — SLOUGH

Miss Lestor: asked the Prime Minister if he will now pay an official visit to Slough.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have at present no plans to do so.

Miss Lestor: Although I would not normally press the Prime Minister to fulfil such an engagement, I draw to his attention that a recent resolution passed by the Eton and Slough Constituency Labour Party calling the Industrial Relations Court a puppet court has produced conflicting opinions among legal advisers, including the Attorney-General, on whether it constitutes contempt of the court. Since the Prime Minister is responsible for the Industrial Relations Act, will he consider coming to Slough to conciliate and arbitrate between the various opinions expressed by the lawyers, who seem to find the Act just as confusing as do shop stewards and ordinary men and women in the street?

The Prime Minister: Parliament is responsible for the Act and the courts are responsible for interpreting it.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT POLICIES (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. John D. Grant: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Conservative Women's Conference in London on 24th May concerning industrial relations.

Mr. Redmond: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he made to the Conservative Women's Conference on 24th May on future Government policy.

Sir Gilbert Longden: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Conservative Women's Conference on Wednesday, 24th May on Government policy.

Mr. Joel Barnett: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of his public speech to the Conservative Women's Conference in London on 24th May on prices.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Conservative Women's Conference in London on 24th May on Government policies.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on 24th May in the Central Hall, Westminster, on his Government's fulfilment of their election pledges.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on 24th May to the Conservative Women's Conference on Government policy.

Mr. Douglas: asked the Prime Minister if he will place a copy of his public speech on industrial relations to the Conservative Women's Conference on 24th May, 1972 in the Library.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Prime Minister if he will now place in the Library a copy of his public speech given to the Conservative Women's Conference in London on 24th May, 1972, concerning Government policiis.

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech which he made on 24th May, 1972, at the Conservative Women's Annual Conference in London on the subject of unemployment.

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Prime Minister if he will place a copy of his public speech made to the Conservative Women's Conference on 24th May, on Government policies in the Library.

Mr. Ashton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place a copy of his public speech to the Conservative Women's Conference on Government policies on 24th May in the Library.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place a copy of his public speech made on 24th May, 1972, to the Conservative Women's Conference on Government policies in the Library.

Mr. David Stoddart: asked the Prime Minister if he will place a copy of his public speech to the Annual Conservative Women's Conference in London on 24th May on the Government's general policy in the Library.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Conservative Women's Conference on 24th May on Government policies.

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Conservative Women's Conference on 24th May about Government policy.

Mr. Bishop: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Conservative Women's Annual Conference on 24th May on Government policies.

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of his public speech to the Conservative Women's Conference on 24th May on violence.

The Prime Minister: In view of the considerable interest in this speech, especially from hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have placed a substantial number of copies in the Library, which have been available since 25th and 26th May.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you allow the Prime Minister to deal with all the supplementary questions which will arise on the large number of Questions which are being taken together, I am sure it escaped your notice that on the previous Question which concerned a point of law my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), the former Attorney-General, rose from the Front British industry are, namely on the Treasury Benches—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Grant: However many copies the Prime Minister puts in the Library, it will not make the speech any better. Does he recall that in that speech he spoke of the need for straight talking with the trade unions? As a result of the events of this week, the sequel to the rail pay ballot fiasco, the Appeal Court decision and the powder keg situation arising in the docks as a result of the industrial relations verdict, it is becoming increasingly apparent where the wildcats in


British industry are, namely on the Treasury Benches—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is in a difficult position because the Prime Minister is answering together a great many Questions. I have no intention of allowing the Prime Minister's Question Time to be extended beyond a reasonable limit. The longer the supplementaries, the fewer hon. Members will get in.

Mr. Grant: Does not the Prime Minister recognise that the longer the Act goes on, the more it will throttle any prospect of an improvement in industrial relations? When will he jettison the Act?

The Prime Minister: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis. Mr. Victor Feather and I are in agreement that there should be frank talking about these problems and he accepted my invitation to do so.

Mr. Redmond: Was it not typical that when my right hon. Friend made his speech about future policy, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was making a speech at a seaside resort about past policy? Is it not possible to negotiate terms whereby future incomes policy gives preference to the lower paid, thereby helping the people who need help without having very much effect on the cost of living?

The Prime Minister: This is one of the big questions which must be settled in industrial relations and in wage negotiations. I know that some members of the TUC are very much aware of this and believe that there need to be priorities if the total wage bill in the economy is not to create inflation.

Mr. Barnett: As the Prime Minister contemplates the ruins of his policy on inflation, will he give a direct answer to the crucial question whether he will impose a freeze on prices, rents and dividends in any circumstances?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's allegations, and the questions do not therefore arise. Why should the hon. Gentleman wish to have a freeze in certain respects? This surely must be the most unjustifiable of all suggestions.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Though it may be necessary to introduce some more

effective measures to control inflation, which is a cruel disease that hits the poorest hardest, will my right hon. Friend agree that any imposition of a statutory wages and prices freeze would simply lead to a horde of snooping enforcement officers and to a resurrection of the black market, and in any case would be no permanent solution.

The Prime Minister: The disadvantages my hon. Friend has outlined could arise in that situation. As the House saw, the trade unions were bitterly opposed to this course on the last occasion it was introduced, and the Labour Administration completely abandoned either a freeze or any sort of statutory policy.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the Prime Minister aware that one plank of Conservative Party policies at the General Election involved the question of open government? We all know from the leading story in today's Guardian that we obviously have the most open government in the world. Although the situation may have improved since the first Guardian exposure, will he do something to improve on the sloppy assurances on confidentiality which I have been given by every Minister I have questioned on this matter in the past two years?

The Prime Minister: It is a little ungracious of the hon. Gentleman to make those remarks. When the allegations were made, I immediately instituted the fullest inquiries and as a result action has been taken in the courts. The story, to which I understand the hon. Gentleman is referring, showed that as a result of the inquiries I ordered to be made further breaches are alleged to have taken place. These will be dealt with in the normal manner.

Mr. Meacher: Since in that speech the Prime Minister said that he did not want people to exist on miserably low wages, what has he done for the one million working families below the tax threshold who do not get the benefit of the £1 a week income tax reduction and only 7 per cent. of whom receive family income supplement? Why has he done precisely nothing for the remaining 93 per cent. of the population when in the Budget the Government gave on average to each of the million richest families an extra£300 a year?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, all working families receive a tax remission, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced in his Budget—[HON. Members: "No."] Yes, they did. The hon. Gentleman was asking about those who did not; they are eligible for family income supplement—[Hon. Members: "No."]—in certain cases. For the rest, I have indicated that the Government are prepared to consider a policy in which the lower-paid workers should be the ones to benefit first.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Contrary to any question of the Government's anti-inflation policy being in ruins, have not over half the settlements in the public sector since Wilberforce been under 8 per cent., with an average of 9 per cent? Does this not indicate a considerable success for a policy which is being pursued in the interests of the nation?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the figures last Saturday. I recall that there were35 settlements in the public sector since Wilberforce, excluding two affecting the coalmining industry. The average rate of settlement was 9 per cent. The Director-General of the CBI has said that the public sector settlements are higher than settlements in the private sector. Therefore, this refutes the argument that the public sector is being used as an example to the private sector.

Mr. Douglas: Would the right hon. Gentleman not concede that it is important for any Government to produce a climate of good social policy if they want to get the co-operation of the trade unions? Does he not agree that what he should do in the present context is to withdraw both the Housing Finance (Scotland) Bill and its English equivalent, the Housing Finance Bill?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not accept that. I would agree with the hon. Gentleman about seeking the right social climate, and all parties have a part to play in that respect. I do not propose to withdraw the arrangements for rent rebates, which are an essential part of the Housing Finance Bill.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the Prime Minister recall that in his speech he said

that in less than two years the Government had carried out, or brought to a decision, all the important measures in their election programme? Does that mean that the Prime Minister is proud of what the Government have done in the last two years, or was he joking? If he was joking, will he not bring to the test the Government's popularity by calling a general election, which will give a clear indication of which party the people to see in government?

The Prime Minister: I can answer that quite quickly. I am immensely proud.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Since the Prime Minister has evinced such optimism about the question of unemployment, will he give an undertaking that by the end of this year the figures will be appreciably lower than the still very serious figures of unemployment today?

The Prime Minister: We have taken measures, which we think were right, to deal with unemployment, and it is now evident that they are having an effect. The hon. Gentleman must wait and see how the progress goes.

Mr. Bidwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman, like his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, a Daily Mirror reader and, if so, has he seen in today's edition an article which says that unless inflation is curbed it will wreck the national economy and impoverish everyone except the rich? Further, I am sure that as a Daily Telegraph reader, he will have seen today's cartoon which recalls the two occasions on which he failed to apply the brakes? Would it not be better to have the General Election at which he hinted in his speech to the Conservative Women's Conference?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to see any article in a newspaper that calls attention to the dangers of inflation. One then wants support for our measures which are containing inflation and reducing it.

Mr. Kinsey: The Prime Minister in his speech said that settlements should be in the interest of the consumer and the community. This is not the case in the latest settlement with the railway workers and I hope that we shall recognise that we are causing higher prices for


the housewife and, if the trend continues, also pricing ourselves out of world markets.

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course, inflationary settlements affect export prices and can be damaging. It is unnecessary to exaggerate that, because we can compare our own prices with those of other countries. The expectation of the British industrialist, as shown in the last CBI survey, is that exports will increase. If there are inflationary settlements there is a real danger, and that is why we are continuing to fight them.

Mr. Ashton: When the Prime Minister was talking to the Conservative house wives and reminding them of all he has done in the last two years, did he also remind them of what he said during the General Election about a 15p loaf if a Labour Government were elected to power? In view of the fact that a Conservative Government were elected, will he revise that estimate and say how much a loaf will cost by the time of the next election?

The Prime Minister: The housewives at the party conference fully approved of what I said.

Dame Irene Ward: Would my right hon. Friend accept how wise he was to make a speech of this kind to women who are absolutely fed up—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] The women are basically fed up—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—are basically fed up—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This exuberance is limiting the number of supplementaries that I shall be able to allow.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware how very grateful the women were that he made his speech to them, because they are fed up—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—with the continual action of the left-wing of the Labour Party, which wants to ruin the country?

The Prime Minister: I take it from what my hon. Friend says that the women are fed up with the lack of any suitable policies from the Labour Party. They are absolutely right.

Mr. Skinner: As for carrying out all his election pledges to the point of deci-

sion within two years, has not the right hon. Gentleman forgotten the two most important of all—"full-hearted consent "and" at a stroke"? Are we to assume that these are very good examples of the much-maligned "instant think"?

The Prime Minister: As this House gave its authority to the European policy by a majority of 112 on a free vote before the Labour Party was gagged, there can be no question about the consent of the House for that policy. What is more, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer slashed purchase tax and halved SET, he certainly reduced prices at a stroke.

Mr. Stoddart: In that speech which the Prime Minister has placed in the Library he said, he will recall, that he had completed his programme in two years. Is he aware that many people are saying that they hope that he will go now before calamity becomes catastrophe? However, more to the point, bearing in mind that there is so much more time left to him, will he say why he is guillotining the European Communities Bill with such indecent haste?

The Prime Minister: Our whole European policy, the negotiations and the Bill are being debated at greater length than any Bill since, probably, the Finance Bill of 1910–11. The hon. Gentleman cannot have any objection.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: In order to relieve the uncertainties and anxieties of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in future he will guarantee to place sufficient copies of his speeches in the Library in order that the Order Paper may contain Questions of more specific interests on these important topics?

The Prime Minister: It is a matter for the House as a whole whether it wishes hon. Members to go on tabling Questions of this kind or to deal with matters of substance.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman said that purchase tax cuts have reduced prices. Did he see the figures published last Sunday showing that over the greater range of purchase tax cuts prices have remained the same or since risen? Secondly, as all these supplementaries are about the right hon.


Gentleman's speech to the Conservative housewives in London, will he agree to place in the Library a copy of his speech in June, 1970, to the housewives of Leicester about all the prices that he proposed to reduce during that period? Thirdly, when the right hon. Gentleman refers to incomes polices, does he recall that 16 months ago the Trades Union Congress put before him proposals for a price-related threshold incomes policy? After 16 months, can he say whether he has accepted that, rejected it, or is he still stalling on it?

The Prime Minister: As to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman' squestion, the subject of threshold agreements has been discussed with the TUC, with the CBI and in the NEDC on a number of occasions. The TUC has discussed it with me. The TUC is not itself agreed about threshold agreements. We have said that we are prepared to examine and consider them in whatever way the TUC wishes to put them forward. This is a serious matter. There is no delay on the part of the Government. But there has been no agreement among the TUC in the talks that they have had with me about threshold agreements, and TUC members have said so frankly. The Government cannot be committed to that sort of approach.

Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the other two questions that I put to him about purchase tax and the figures published last Sunday and about whether he will put a copy of his Leicester speech in the Library?

The Prime Minister: I am prepared to put copies of any of my speeches in the Library. They are all on record. As for purchase tax reductions, figures in the Press show the reductions in prices as a result of these purchase tax cuts. The right hon. Gentleman's criticisms of this Administration will become more credible when he ceases to support every inflationary wage claim, no matter how large.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Wilson. Business questions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the Leader of the House be good enough to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 19TH JUNE—Supply (22nd allotted day): There will be a debate on Yorkshire and Humberside, on an Opposition Motion.

Motion on the Housing Associations (Increased Contributions) Order.

TUESDAY, 20TH JUNE, WEDNESDAY, 21ST JUNE, and THURSDAY, 22ND JUNE—Further progress in Committee on the European Communities Bill.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named Opposed Private Business for consideration on Tuesday and Wednesday.

FRIDAY, 23RD JUNE—Remaining stages of the Gas Bill.

MONDAY, 26TH JUNE—Supply (23rd allotted day); when there will be separate half-day debates on food prices and the development of Piccadilly Circus.

Mr. Wilson: When the right hon. Gentleman has had time to consider the events of last night, especially his own performance—I say nothing of the Prime Minister chickening out—will he consider making a statement next week on the points that were raised, especially in relation to a Report stage? I do not press him to make it today, because these are important issues affecting the House. But I give him advance notice that if that statement is not satisfactory we propose to move a Motion of censure on the Government both in respect of the events of last night and in respect of the Government's attitude to the whole conduct of this Bill in the House.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that I asked him last week for a statement in the House about the Eton and Slough question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor). Perhaps because of some oversight, Questions about it which were to come from this side of the House were not called today. May we be clear about the position with regard to free discussion?
Thirdly, on a related point, will the right hon. Gentleman say when we are to debate the report of the Select Committee on Procedure dealing with the sub judice rule so that this House will no longer have to be gagged for three or four weeks on questions of ministerial responsibility because a matter is being dragged out as a result of Government action before the courts?

Mr. Carr: Taking the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I will gladly join him in self-examination of our behaviour last night. That is always a healthy exercise, and I will join him if he will join me.
As for further progress on the European Communities Bill and the Report stage, I shall of course consider the possibility of making a statement. However, I should repeat what is the position. It is that the timetable Motion to which we are operating now makes proper provision for there to be a Report stage, as I think I made clear last night—[Interruption.] Whether there is a Report stage depends entirely on decisions of the Committee.
My right hon. and learned Friend will continue to advise the Committee on the merits of Amendments as he sees them. It is then for the Committee to decide whether or not to accept my right hon. and learned Friend's advice. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the advice given by my right hon. and learned Friend is not, shall I say; always automatically accepted by all right hon. and hon. Members, even on this side of the Committee, so it really is a matter for decision by the Committee in the proper constitutional way. If an Amendment is carried, of course there will have to be a Report stage, and the Motion under which we are debating the Bill provides for that. I am not sure that I can say more about that, but I shall give it further thought.
As to the Eton and Slough case—when the right hon. Gentleman mentioned it last week I did not know that it related to that area—I have, as promised, spoken to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment about it. In the meantime, there has been the statement on 8th June by the President of the National Industrial Relations Court which I believe will be helpful, and which I think has cleared the air about comment here.
On the constituency point, there appears to be some misunderstanding. The matter is a little complicated, and perhaps I might explain it in detail by writing to the right hon. Gentleman, and to the hon. Lady as well, rather than try to cover the matter at length now.
On the final point about the sub judice rule generally, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the report from the Procedure Committee has been published this morning. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to consider what it has to say. I recognise that this is a very important matter and that the House will wish to debate it as soon as we have had a reasonable chance to consider it and time can be found for it.

Mr. Wilson: On the last point, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said. Does he realisethat every day that goes by without a debate now that the report is available—we understand why it has taken so long to produce—means that the House is gagged on matters of public policy in a way which in the history of Parliament, certainly in this century, has never been the case before in respect of Ministers responsible to Parliament? Will he please speed it up all he can?
Secondly, dealing with the Report stage and Amendments to the European Communities Bill the right hon. Gentleman said that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster assesses the merits of Amendments as he sees them. Is it not clear to most hon. Members that the right hon. and learned Gentleman assesses the demerits of them without knowing what is in them so that there cannot be a Report stage? If it is the intention that the House should be cheated of a Report stage on this important Bill, of which there is every sign now, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his timetable Motion does not cover Motions of censure?

Mr. Carr: On the first point, what the right hon. Gentleman said about the House having been limited in debate by the sub judice rule on matters for which Ministers are responsible is not true. I imagine that there have been many difficult and controversial occasions—for


example, on inquiries into major disasters—on which Ministers have had some responsibility and where the House has perhaps been precluded from debating the matter by the sub judice rule.
But that is not really the point that I want to make. The point is that, whatever our view about what the sub judice rule should be, I think the House will agree that it is immensely important and urgent, but that everybody ought to have reasonable time for consideration before expressing firm conclusions about it. The matter is difficult, important and also urgent. I can only promise the right hon. Gentleman that the Government will consider the matter deeply and with as much urgency as they can muster.
Coming back to the European Communities Bill, it is not really my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who forms a judgment. It is 630 hon. Members of the House who, by their votes, form a judgment. The right hon. Gentleman mutters "Three-line Whip". If he looks at the history of the Bill and asks himself honestly which party has been gagged and which has not, I think he will agree that I am right.

Sir D. Renton: Would it not be without precedent and a lessening of the solemnity of the censure Motion if the Government were to be censured when they had won a Division?

Mr. Carr: I should have thought that it would be one of the most unconstitutional propositions that one could think of.

Mr. Thorpe: The Leader of the House will be aware that, although the Government have a majority of 26, on at least one occasion had the Opposition turned out in greater numbers there would have been a Report stage because an Amendment for which my colleagues and I voted would have been carried?
While warmly supporting the Leader of the Opposition in his assertion that the views of the House should be clearly expressed on this important issue of the European Communities Bill, may I ask the Leader of the House for an undertaking that Her Majesty's Government are prepared at any time to provide

Government time for a debate on the wide-ranging issues of Europe, even during the course of the Bill, provided that it is on a free vote, with United Nations observers in the Lobby?

Mr. Carr: I suspect that I should have to refer this matter to the Procedure Committee before I could possibly fulfil the right hon. Gentleman's last request, but I think that the action which my right hon. Friends took in providing a free vote on our side of the House on the vital decision in principle on 28th October is an indication of our attitude. Thank goodness I have no responsibility for Whipping the Official Opposition.

Sir F. Bennett: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the disturbing reports during the last 24 hours about the commencement of a series of Nuremburg-type war crimes trials in Bangladesh. In view of the pending talks between the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India which could lead to peace on the sub-continent, may we look forward to a statement next week from my righthon. Friend the Foreign Secretary if this trend continues in order to clarify the issue and see what can be done to avert yet another tragedy there?

Mr. Carr: This is obviously an important matter from the point of view of world peace. My right hon. Friend has heard my hon. Friend's question, and I am sure that if there is anything to report to the House he will find an opportunity to do so.

Sir Elwyn Jones: In view of the serious difficulties arising from the application of the law of contempt to the proceedings before the Industrial Relations Court—difficulties which, unhappily, have by no means been resolved by the statement by the President of that court—would it not be desirable, as a matter of urgency, to submit this matter to the Phillimore Committee expressly for an interim opinion, and would the Leader of the House make a statement on this matter as soon as may be?

Mr. Carr: I am grateful for the spirit in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made that comment. I assure him that my right hon. Friend and I regard this as a serious matter. I do not think that he will expect me to give an off-the-cuff definitive answer to his ques-


tion, but I shall consult my right hon. Friend about it.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend consider urgently the possibility of a debate on the agriculture industry as we have not had one yet this year and it is urgent to have such a debate before we take a final vote on entry into Europe so that farmers and people in this country know how food prices will stand and what policies the Government have for reforming the CAP when we get in?

Mr. Carr: I cannot give any specific promise about an agriculture debate in the foreseeable future. I should have thought that these matters had been discussed to a considerable degree in our recent debates. I was asked about this last week, but since then I have looked up the precedents. I find that debates on agriculture have hitherto, certainly over the last decade, always been in Supply time, although the last time that such a debate took place was as long ago as 1965.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is expected on this side that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications will in the next few days announce his decisions on applications to establish private cable television to serve new communities? Can he assure us that the Minister's decision in this regard will not be announced in a hole and corner manner, by means of an answer to a Written Question? Bearing in mind the impact that this decision is likely to have on family life in these new communities, can he assure us that it will be announced in a statement to the House?

Mr. Carr: I cannot accept, before I come to the particular point, that announcing decisions in Written Answers—particularly in view of the proposals just published by the Select Committee on Procedure—can fairly be described as a "hole and corner" manner. It is always a difficult matter to know what should be the subject of oral statements and what should not. While some hon. Members want them, others resent the interference with ordinary business. I will, however, consult my right hon. Friend.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: During the course of business next week, could my right hon. Friend find means of explaining to the House why the Opposition should find a Lord Denning judgment sacrosanct and admirable and a Sir John Donaldson judgment suspect and villainous, when they are both judges in the High Court?

Mr. Carr: I should be wrong to give my own views of these interesting propositions, let alone comment on the views of anybody else.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: In view of the serious effect that the law of contempt and the way in which it is being applied is having on free discussion in the Press and elsewhere, would it not be better if the Leader of the House, instead of expressing pious concern, found time next week for a simple one-Clause Bill amending the law of contempt as it applies to the Industrial Relations Court and limiting it purely to cases where there has been interference with witnesses?

Mr. Carr: That would be a very rash course to pursue. This is a very difficult matter and a very important one for freedom under the law. When I read the papers day after day, which seem to be fairly full of comment as well as news on these matters—[Hon. Members: "What about us?"]—the question that I was asked was about the Press—I hardly feel that they are labouring under tremendous restriction.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Would my right hon. Friend accept that those of us on this side who would wish to see Amendments accepted and made to the European Communities Bill, and the consequence of a Report stage, nevertheless strongly deprecate the intrusion of personalities into this matter and the sort of language used and strictures made by some right hon. Gentlemen last night?

Mr. Carr: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, but we all know that passions rise and, thank goodness, passions fall. I do not want to comment in any way which would cause them to rise again.

Mr. Ewing: In view of the widespread concern about North Sea oil, the debate which took place in another place last week and the statements made earlier


this week by Sir William McEwan Younger, Chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland, would the right hon. Gentleman consider allocating time in the near future to a debate on this very important subject?

Mr. Carr: I realise that this is an important subject. I will think about it, but it is no good my pretending anything but that the pressure of subjects which we all want to discuss is very great and that it would take not just days or weeks but months if I were to satisfy even half of them.

Mr. Hazelhurst: When will the House return to consideration of the Local Government Bill? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many important Amendments on the Order Paper affecting boundaries and that it is important that there should be certainty in these matters?

Mr. Carr: I cannot give my hon. Friend a definitive statement, but it may be that this time next week I can say something about it.

Mr. Wilson: Two of the right hon. Gentleman's answers suggested that he thought that the House had not been inhibited in its right to put questions on ministerial responsibility inrelation to applications to the National Industrial Relations Court. Would he look into this and reconsider his answers, and consider whether it is not a fact that for three weeks we were unable to hold the Minister responsible to this House for his application to the court about the ballot, as earlier for a period we could not do in relation to the cooling-off period, and that even when that situation lapsed—one has to wait for the possibility of a still higher appeal—the Minister refused to answer any questions about his responsibility? Would the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter and see whether he can justify the statements that he has made today?

Mr. Carr: I cannot quickly recall the circumstances of my first answer earlier. The second, of course, just now, was, I thought, in reply to a question specifically related to the Press, rather than to this House, but of course I will look at what I have said and the answers than I gave.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Whitelaw, statement.

Mr. Paisley: On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the House has been inhibited today from putting any question to the Leader of the House concerning a promise that he made that he would consult all the Members for Northern Ireland about the way in which legislation in future will be handled in this House? Are you aware that the people of Northern Ireland are now very concerned that one of the most important matters of legislation, in regard to education, will be put in a draft order before the House without any hon. Member being able to amend it?

Mr. Speaker: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is just about to make a statement about Northern Irish affairs. Mr. Whitelaw.

Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order. This concerns the statement recently made during business questions. Mr. Speaker, and your reaction to it. When the Leader of the Opposition raised one or two points about the inhibitions from which this House suffers when questions on the National Industrial Relations Court are being discussed, you indicated dissent by shaking your head, as though—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair must be judged by its spoken words and not by any gesture that it might make. I frequently shake my head for a variety of reasons. [Laughter.]

Mr. Atkinson: Mr. Atkinson rose—

Mr. Speaker: Really, this is not a point of order.

Mr. Atkinson: If I might continue the point and ask for your guidance—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Atkinson: Might I ask for your guidance on this question, Mr. Speaker? Could you now say whether you are free to judge the advisability of allowing a Standing Order No. 9 debate on the question of the docks dispute at the moment? Would you be free to allow such a debate if it was requested?

Mr. Speaker: Two points: first, it is hypothetical; second, this is not the right time in our proceedings to raise any question of a Standing Order No. 9 debate.

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): Mr. Speaker, I will with permission make a statement on two steps upon which Her Majesty's Government have decided in relation to Northern Ireland.
In assuming direct responsibility for Northern Ireland on 30th March, the Government held it to be an important objective to create an atmosphere in which the varying political views in Northern Ireland on the future of the Province could be brought together and discussed.
As I said in the debate in this House last Monday, there is a strong desire in Northern Ireland that discussions on the future should now begin. It is therefore my intention to enter into immediate conversations to arrange an early conference and the conditions under which it might be held. I believe that the conference should be a conference of the people of Northern Ireland. The object will be to enable those who hold a wide variety of political opinions to exchange views to see what common ground can be found concerning the future of democratic institutions in Northern Ireland and report the conclusions to Her Majesty's Government and to this House.
If my conversations show that there is also a widespread desire for a plebiscite on the border at an early date the Government would be very ready to arrange it.
The second step relates to the local government reforms which were inaugurated by the previous Northern Ireland Government. As I previously confirmed, to that end elections to the new district councils will be held in the autumn of this year. Her Majesty's Government have been giving much thought to the most appropriate basis upon which these elections might be held. During the 1920s both parliamentary and local elections were held under a system of the single transferable vote with multi-member constituencies. In the previous Northern Ireland Government's Consultative Document published in 1971 the possibility of this system was put forward for discussion.
Her Majesty's Government have decided to propose to Parliament that in

the present particular circumstances in Northern Ireland it would be right to hold these local elections under proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. I should like to make it clear that this decision relates only to these particular elections. It in no way prejudices decisions on Northern Ireland's democratic institutions in future nor on subsequent local elections.
The required administrative preparations will probably make it necessary to postpone the elections from the date hitherto envisaged in the second half of October to November or December. However, the councils elected will still take office in April, 1973, as planned.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Secretary of State aware that we regard his statement on proportional representation as an important step forward? We shall need a full debate on this important issue because it comes outside the arrangements made in the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act for legislation emanating from Northern Ireland. Given the social and religious barriers in the North, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that proportional representation is the only way of giving moderation a chance of expression? Is he aware that all the moderate parties, which I have met again in the last few days, want proportional representation? As the right hon. Gentleman has explained, Mr. Faulkner had proportional representation in his Consultative Document. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, however, that in our view proportional representation will be equally vital in the next stage of return to democracy in Northern Ireland?
With regard to the next stage, to talk about talks, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House approve of this flexible, one-step-at-a-time approach? When he talks about the plebiscite, we are glad also that he proposes to discuss this with all sides in Northern Ireland before taking a decision.
With regard—because it is relevant to this—to the recent ultimatum by the Provisional I.R.A., it so happens that I was in the Bogside at the time. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, however inepty the offer was made, it is a sign both of the growing minority feeling for peace and that the Provisional leadership


is beginning to think politically? Would he not agree that the fact that they would talk without the precondition on internment is a most significant factor? Would it not help in concentrating the mind of all in Northern Ireland if the Secretary of State made it clear, however, that a final decision on the future of Northern Ireland will be taken by representatives elected by the people of Northern Ireland and that in this respect the local elections are a beginning?
Finally, reverting to the right hon. Gentleman's meeting with the Ulster Defence Association, which is also relevant to his talks about talks, I have spent some time with the majority—in this instance, the majority working class—in Northern Ireland in recent days. Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that they still need reassurance and that, if the Provisionals continue with violence, no amount of talking will save the day? Indeed, within the next week or two if both the UDA and the Provisionals would stop talking and acting in a violent way there is a chance that the initiative would give much that everyone in Northern Ireland wants.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. On his first point about proportional representation, I believe that it is right to give this system a trial in these particular local elections without any further commitments at all. I believe that it will provide evidence as to how this system would work, which would be of great value in deciding what would be right for the future. This is a trial, in one particular set of local elections, without any prejudice to what might happen in the future.
I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about talks. I believe that in these matters such a conference giving the people of Northern Ireland an opportunity to express their views is very important. I believe, equally, that in discussions as to how such a conference should be mounted it is right not to lay down preconditions, but it is important to try to get them all around the conference table.
On the third point, the ultimatum by the Provisional IRA, I want to say to the House as little as possible at present, apart from what I made perfectly clear on Monday, particularly because I am

shortly to see two members of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, who, after all, are the elected representatives in these areas. It must surely be right to talk to the people who are the elected representatives. I shall be talking to them about this situation, and I should prefer to say nothing in advance of my conversations with them.
I have had meetings and discussions with some members of the Ulster Defence Association. I certainly respect the feelings—if respect is the right word—I certainly understand the feelings of anger and frustration that many people have because violence has continued, and those, after all, are feelings which everyone can share. They need reassurance. This House, both the Government and the Opposition—the hon. Gentleman the other night—has given them all the reassurance that we are concerned about the position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. I equally made clear to them how important I believed it was in the current climate to take no actions which would promote further sectarian conflict, which could only bring disaster to everyone. I believe that they undersood that position.

Mr. McMaster: In view of his answer to the previous question, can my right hon. Friend say what arrangements he intends to make for the chairmanship of the conference and what right the elected representatives in Northern Ireland, whom he has just praised, will have to take part in the conference? These are the only people who are properly responsible spokesmen for the people of Northern Ireland.
We welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman met members of the Ulster Defence Association and that he refused to meet members of the Provisional IRA earlier this week. The members of the Provisional IRA are responsible for over 350 cruel murders in Northern Ireland and many thousands of mutilations of innocent men, women and children in a campaign of violence which is still continuing at this moment.
As my right hon. Friend's statement gives litle guidance on the Government's intention for dealing with this matter, which is the main problem, what steps do the Government intend to take to bring this campaign of violence to an end and


to restore law and order and policing to the Bogside, the Creggan and fully to every part of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Whitelaw: First, I accept the position that the UDA and other people in Northern Ireland want reasurrance about the determination to bring terrorism to an end. I do not want to add to what I have consistently said on this subject at this particular moment. We have various opportunities. I cannot tell what will happen, but I do not want to prejudice them by any remarks I may happen to make at this particular time.

Mr. Orme: Is the Secretary of State aware that many of us feel that events have taken a most welcome positive turn during the last few days? Would he not agree that the talks that he had with, for instance, the UDA were not negotiations but opportunities for people to express their opinion? Would he take it from me, at least—and from some of my hon. Friends—that if he met other bodies in Northern Ireland to hear their views, whether it was the Provisionals or anyone else, that in itself would not be negotiation, and that if an exchange of views led to the ending of violence and then to the talks taking place with the elected representatives, this would be the most heartening development in 1972?

Mr. Whitelaw: If the violence could be ended, that would certainly be the most heartening development of all from every point of view.
As to any question of negotiating, I did not negotiate with the Ulster Defence Association. This afternoon I am seeing the members of the SDLP who asked me to see them, who, I believe, are the right people to see. I shall see them first. Otherwise my position remains the same as set out before.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be satisfaction in the House that he appears to be gaining the trust of moderates in both communities? We wish him well in that. Is he aware that the experience of the 1920s at local government level was that the system of proportional representation encouraged moderates to have an influence, not excluding the Shankill and Falls Road area? Therefore, many of us feel that this is the one way in which the moderates

could have an influence and extremism will not be at a premium in politics? We therefore welcome it.
Is the Secretary of State aware that all parties who have an interest in a peaceful democratic solution in Northern Ireland will co-operate with his conference?
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the administrative preparations for PR. In case he should fall into administrative difficulties with his advisers, who are always rather conservative in facing any change, is he aware that to combine existing boundaries and to publish the necessary regulations will take roughly 48 hours? If any of the right hon. Gentleman's advisers think that will take longer, I should be delighted to give the right hon. Gentleman assistance.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not want to be misunderstood, but I do not think that my advisers, in this instance those in the Northern Ireland Civil Service, for whom I have the highest praise, would be described as conservative. I think that they are extremely wise administrators and that they can do this job, which I tell the House is quite an administrative task, in the time involved.
As to what the right hon. Gentleman says about moderate people, this is the great problem in Northern Ireland, and no one must doubt it. There are many people on all sides who feel very deeply, as they are entitled to do, about the issues involved. Many of those who feel very deeply are equally at the same time very suspicious of any changes and very suspicious of anyone who is trying to set a new course. I need hardly tell the House how suspicious and angry quite a large number of people are with me. I must accept that in the task I am seeking to perform.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the festering sore in Northern Ireland at the moment among the majority section of the community is the sore of the no-go areas? Can he tell the House what he has in mind to prevent, not this weekend but the following weekend, an outbreak of opposition from the majority party against the no-go areas in the Roman Catholic area? Will he not agree with me that we cannot sweep this matter under the carpet and that it has to be faced?
When the Secretary of State calls this conference of all the people—I quote what he said—will he make it clear that those people who have publicly declared that they have murdered British troops, murdered members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, murdered part of the civilian population, and blown up places like the Co-operative Stores will not be at any conference table to discuss the future of Northern Ireland and that he will ensure that the elected representatives of the people will be the responsible people called to this conference table and no one else?
Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that if he does not put up the shutters as far as the IRA is concerned, in both its wings, as to discussions about the future of Northern Ireland he will have such an aftermath from the Protestant population that there will be no future in any talks?

Mr. Whitelaw: The no-go areas is a subject which is constantly discussed with me on every occasion in every conversation that I have. I cannot do better than quote words that were put to me. These words may, indeed, indicate to those who know the situation the sort of person who made the remark to me. The answer I was given was this: "There are more ways of killing a pig than cutting its throat". If this is said, I believe that that is a very wise comment on the ways in which the no-go areas should and can be dealt with. But dealt with they have to be, and I accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
On the hon. Gentleman's other point, I think I made my position perfectly clear in what I did on Monday; and on that position I stand.

Mr. McManus: While deploring the bloodthirsty metaphors of the Secretary of State, which may be indicative of the British Government's entire attitude to Northern Ireland, can I ask him to reverse his decision not to talk to the Provisional IRA? Will he agree with me that everybody in the minority, even the SDLP, has suggested that this is a genuine peace offer and that if he refuses to accept this genuine peace offer the responsibility for the continuation of violence will be seen to rest squarely on his shoulders?

Hon. Members: Rubbish!

Mr. McManus: The right hon. Gentleman gives as his reason the fact that he will not speak with those who shoot at British soldiers. Does he not agree with me, as the Army itself has stated, that members of the UDA have themselves shot at the British Army? Yet he felt able to talk to their entire inner council.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree as will all reasonable people, that any man who is interested in peace and who deliberately excludes those without whose consent peace is not possible is not genuinely seeking peace? If the Secretary of State does not change his mind, the 48 hours will shortly be over, the violence may likely continue, and the responsibility for that violence in the eyes of the minority will rest on the Secretary of State?

Hon. Members: No!

Mr. Whitelaw: It is sometimes very difficult not to be provoked. I have no intention of being provoked. However, if there is one person in this House, besides the hon. Gentleman—or indeed in this country—who is going to say that I would be responsible for the violence created by people who are bombing, who are shooting civilians, and who are shooting British troops—

Miss Devlin: Yes.

Mr. Whitelaw: —after all that I have tried to do in Northern Ireland, I think I am entitled to resent it very much indeed. If the hon. Lady thinks so, too—

Miss Devlin: Yes.

Mr. Whitelaw: —and I understand that she thinks so—I cannot believe that many people will take that view.
However, the hon. Gentleman talks about my bloodthirsty words. I am accused constantly in the House of being a coward for not doing various things, of being too soft, of being too weak. Now I am accused of using bloodthirsty words. After a short time I understand all these remarks, and I suppose they are all true at the same time.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the simple position that I am put in if clear ultimatums are put to me by people who are still continuing with violence.


Ultimatums from people who are continuing with violence cannot be accepted. That is what I said. I am seeing the elected people from the SDLP this afternoon, and I do not wish to prejudice that in any way.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I welcome very much his decision to proceed with the basis of commencing political talks? Can he tell us the process by which these talks will take decisions? Is it to be on a unanimous basis or on a majority basis? Or on what basis is it intended that decisions should be taken?
Second, is it the Government's intention, prior to these talks, to stake out the area of their thinking as to the form of regional Parliament which they envisage?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have left open exactly how the talks should proceed, because I wish to discuss with those concerned what would be the best way and not to close options. I have been constantly told in Northern Ireland that the people there want an opportunity of stating how they see their future. I think that is the right first course. I do not wish them to feel—it is important that they should not—that anything is being imposed upon them by the British Government or this House. Therefore, it is right for them to express their views in the first instance.

Mr. Fitt: Does the Secretary of State agree that at the beginning of this week the signs in Northern Ireland were not very hopeful and that many of us were looking forward to a real catastrophe this weekend? However, since then there have been helpful and hopeful signs from both communities in Northern Ireland. Ultimately both communities must be brought in to bring about permanent peace in Northern Ireland.
Will the Secretary of State also recognise and make it clear that the announcement he has made this afternoon relating to the implementation of proportional representation for local government should not be regarded as a victory for the minority over the majority or a victory for the Catholics over the Protestants, but that, in fact, it will be for the good of all people in Northern Ireland who are totally committed to the ending of violence?
Regarding the Secretary of State's announcement that he proposes to call a conference, will he recognise, particularly in the discussions in which he is to engage this afternoon, that the SDLP is totally committed to the ending of violence, but its responses can be matched only by responses given by the right hon. Gentleman? If he will see these discussions which are taking place this afternoon as a step forward, we will reciprocate in the hope that it will be in the interests of everybody in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful for what the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has said and for his constructive spirit, which is extremely important. It is true that everyone has a vested interest in ending violence. It may be a cliché, but if one has lived in Northern Ireland even for a short period, as I have, one knows how desperately true that remark is. I can only hope that the developments will help. One has so many disappointments and setbacks in this world that one has to be ready to accept them and fight on. I very much hope that this is a start.
On proportional representation, I can only repeat that elections were held under this system in the past. It was one of the systems put forward—on a broader text, I know—by the previous Government in their Consultative Document in 1971. Therefore, this is something which people of all parties throughout Northern Ireland have been carefully considering. I believe that the opportunity in these local elections to try it out without commitment for the future is the right way. It is not a victory for anyone. It is simply a good opportunity to try out this system.

Mr. Maginnis: I ask the Secretary of State two short questions. First, how does he hope to ascertain the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland regarding the timing and holding of a plebiscite? Secondly, will he be careful regarding the announcement of proportional representation in local government because most people in Northern Ireland may take this as something which has been imposed on them and as a system which has been operating in Southern Ireland which they are trying to get rid of? Will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear that this is only a temporary


basis and that they will have the right in their own democratically elected associations to reverse this process in future?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis). On the first point about a plebiscite, I simply said here that if, when I am discussing with various people the proposals for the conference, I find that they say they also want this plebiscite at an early date, the British Government will be prepared to organise it. That is a matter for the representatives of the parties and groups that I shall see.
On my hon. Friend's second point, I can only repeat that this system was used before in Northern Ireland. It is absolutely temporary. It is only for these elections. The reason for doing it is that it is a trial. We will see how the system works in these local elections. That will be a good guide to whether it is right to go forward in future.

Miss Devlin: I should like to ask the Secretary of State about a number of issues on which he may or may not be particularly well informed. For example, why has the right hon. Gentleman referred on many occasions to meetings he will have later this afternoon, meetings which he does not care to prejudice? Is he aware that regarding meetings he may hold with the SDLP, while I accept that I am certainly not representative of Provisional opinion, I am certainly more representative of it than any member of the Social Democratic and Labour Party?
Therefore, on the basis of any meetings that the right hon. Gentleman may have this afternoon, there are only three possible conclusions that he may draw. First, the SDLP is asking him to reverse his decision and to talk to the Provisionals, which means talking withnon-elected representatives. Secondly, the SDLP claims to represent the Provisionals, which it cannot do given the statements of several—indeed, most—of its members against the Provisionals. Thirdly, the Social Democratic and Labour Party will act as messenger-boys to the Provisionals, whom the right hon. Gentleman would condemn as terrorists, which, in keeping with its status as the

opposition party in Northern Ireland, it could not do.
Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman first accept that his talks with the SDLP today amount to nothing, mean nothing and will produce nothing in terms of the Provisionals' campaign? [Interruption.] Hon. Members may say it is ridiculous, but in terms of the Provisionals' campaign the talks will mean and produce nothing.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Miss Devlin: I wish to ask a question concerning proportional representation. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the phenomenon in Irish politics, totally alien to British politics with which he has closer links, of the policy of abstention? I represent a constituency which year after year before my election to this House returned a Member who was considered a felon and a terrorist and who, by his own admission, was an IRA man. However, he was continually returned to Parliament before my election. The right hon. Gentleman may or may not have proportional representation, but, unless the last internee is released and unless we end the policy of intimidation of the minority, he may well have proportional representation on the policy of non-attendance at local government, Stormont or Westminster. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that possibility?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the hon. Lady's various points about the SDLP, with which, frankly, I do not agree, she is an elected representative. As an elected representative she has her particular responsibilities. I have been accused before by the hon. Lady and others concerning my responsibilities about violence, but she has her responsibilities as well. If she wishes to come and talk to me, as she is an elected representative, she is at liberty to do so.

Miss Devlin: Miss Devlin indicated dissent.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Lady shakes her head. She will not do so. Then she has her responsibility for not doing so.
As for what the hon. Lady said about proportional representation and all the various points about elections: very well, I note what she has said.
Regarding the hon. Lady's argument about internment, I have made my position abundantly clear over and over again. If I may say one thing to the hon. Lady—

Miss Devlin: It is blackmail.

Mr. Whitelaw: There is no blackmail whatsoever.

Miss Devlin: It is blackmail.

Mr. Whitelaw: If only violence would stop in Northern Ireland the opportunities open to all the people there, the people the hon. Lady represents and everyone else, would be limitless, but the violence is the thing that must stop.

Mr. Kilfedder: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the members of the Ulster Defence Association acted manfully and sensibly in deciding not to go ahead with the erection of permanent barricades despite the continuance of the terrorist campaign?
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a number of people in the Bogside and the Creggan have publicly repudiated the IRA and told it to get off their backs? Does he realise that many people in Northern Ireland have sympathy for and support him in his efforts to bring peace to the Province and hope that his efforts will succeed?
Finally, will my right hon. Friend restrict the conference which he is contemplating holding to the elected representatives of Northern Ireland so that democracy will in the long run prevail?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend has said. I am glad that the UDA decided to refrain from its action concerning barricades, which I believe would have had considerable dangers, and I think it is clear that it does not wish to stir up further sectarian violence. I recognise its decision in that regard.
As for what my hon. Friend has said about the people in the Bogside and Creggan who have tried to get the IRA off their backs, this point has been made con-

stantly by a great many people and it inevitably conditions a lot of one's thoughts and actions. As to what he has said about the conference, I want discussions with all concerned. The elected representatives are the people to whom I will naturally turn in the first instance for discussions. I have made that perfectly clear. I am grateful for what he says about the desire that my efforts—I am answerable to the British Government and this House—should succeed. I cannot but emphasise that the more people who come out and say that the better, because, frankly, we have a responsibility and we hope for Northern Ireland that we succeed because the dangers of failure would be very great.

Mr. Mikardo: Many hon. Members fervently hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to bring his efforts in Northern Ireland to an early and successful conclusion, not only for the great intrinsic value of that outcome but also because that conclusion could possibly allow him to resume his former duties as Leader of the House, a position in which his good temper, his fairness and his courtesy are being greatly missed at the presnt time.

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot accept that for one moment. For all I am told and all that I have heard, I gather that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is far more courteous and far more even-temptered than I am, and I think that this is true.

Later—

Mr. McManus: Can I seek your guidance on a matter which is misleading me and, perhaps, the House, Mr. Speaker? It is the use in this House of the word "terrorism". On the one hand, we have described as terrorists men who wear para-military uniforms and shoot at soldiers. On the other hand, we have men who wear para-military uniforms, shoot at soldiers and wear masks over their faces, and they are not described as terrorists. Would it be in order to ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the man who is most intimately involved, to make a statement detailing his precise definition of a terrorist?

Mr. Speaker: It would not be in order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT (SUB JUDICE RULE)

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday there was a report, subsequently confirmed this morning, that Sir John Donaldson, the Chairman of the National Industrial Relations Court, had threatened to arrest and to hold in prisonleaders of the dockers at Chobham Farm container depot in East London. I attempted to table a Motion in my name and that of other hon. Members condemning Sir John Donaldson's proposed action. The Motion was returned to me by the Table Office—I make no complaints against the officers of the House—on the grounds of the sub judice rule.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that when hon. Members are inhibited in this way their position becomes intolerable. I do not want to enter into the merits or demerits of the case at this stage, but I ask you to reject, on our behalf, the right of any individual to prohibit hon. Members from commenting upon matters of supreme public importance. I accept that the sub judice rule can reasonably be applied in criminal and civil proceedings but I do not accept that it can be applied in industrial relations, which are continuous.
May I submit one other point? Hitherto we have been allowed by Motion to criticise the judiciary, and presumably this will continue to apply to other courts. But because of the nature of the National Industrial Relations Court, and the continuing nature of the cases presented to it, I think that privilege will be taken away from us. I ask you to rule that the sub judice rule does not apply in this case and that the Motion is in order.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for having given me considerable notice of his intention to raise this point of order. It has enabled me to consider the matter. As the House has already been told, the report of the Select Committee on Procedure has been published this morning and I hope hon. Members will read it carefully, in particular perhaps my own evidence in which I indicated my reaction to the sub judice rule.

In my view, in criminal cases or in a particular kind of civil case the burden of proof should be on those who wish to relax the sub judice rule. But in other types of civil case and wider matters of industrial and political policy the burden of proof should be upon those who wish to assert the sub judice rule. That is my general reaction to the matter.
I have carefully considered this particular case, and in these special circumstances I uphold the action of the Table.

Mr. Prentice: The House has a report from the Procedure Committee and there have been demands already this afternoon for an urgent debate on it. The situation now facing us underlines the urgency of the matter. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, will you rule in the spirit of the recommendations? What I have in mind particularly is not so much the recommendation on the Industrial Relations Act, which refers to the Government's procedures under it, but the recommendation on civil proceedings generally, which is that these matters, except in defamation proceedings, may be referred to in Questions, Motions or debate unless it appears to the Chair that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings.
Is it in that spirit that you approach these matters Mr. Speaker? In view of that recommendation, will you reconsider your ruling on this point.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not intolerable that the Chair should be asked to anticipate a decision of the House? The recommendations are in a report of the Committee. They may well be well based, and they certainly represent the view of the Committee, but they do not necessarily represent the view of the House. The sub judice rule has proved over the years to be sound and proper. Whether the court in question is an industrial court of any other court, it is high court. A high court, which is a separate estate in this country, is entitled to the defence of people being quiet while it is considering its rulings. For the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Chair in this case should anticipate a decision of the Hose when the House is far from giving a decision on this important matter is wrong and out of order.

Mr. Speaker: One thing I am not prepared to allow now is a debate on the report of the Select Committee. I have referred to my own evidence which was published, and that was my approach. But I shall abide by the decisions of the House. There is, however, one recommendation of the Committee which I am disposed to follow in advance; that is that when I give a ruling I should not be required to give my reasons for it. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[21ST ALLOTTED DAY].—considered.

Orders of the Day — RHODESIA

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Foreign Secretary to move the Motion standing in his name and that of other of his right hon. Friends, I shall tell the House that I have selected the Amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. Friends. I shall also say what I usually have to say—thatI have an enormous list of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, including four right hon. Members on the Opposition benches, who wish to speak, so I hope speeches will be fairly brief.

4.39 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I beg to move
That this House takes note of the Report of the Commission on Rhodesian Opinion; believes that it is right that there should be time for reflection on the implications of the Report; and supports the Government in its desire to achieve a settlement within the five principles.
I hope the debate will justify my assumption that the aim of all parties in this House is to try to secure progress for Rhodesia towards a truly multi-racial society. Anyone who is familiar with the history of the last 50 years in Africa will realise how ambitious that goal is. But, equally, anyone who knows Rhodesia can see that, although a minority of Europeans hold all the power, control the administration and own 90 per cent. of the wealth, and, on the other side the proportion of Africans to Europeans is over 20 to 1, even so the elements for racial harmony are present in that country.
Rhodesia is different from South Africa in this respect. There is still a widespread feeling among Europeans and moderates of all races that Rhodesia should not become a society based on a total separation of the races. Apartheid, with all its hideous consequences, could take charge, but there is still time and quite possibly the will to reverse the trend and to stop it. That must be our ambition in this House.
In 1961 Britain made an effort to provide Rhodesia with a constitution which would, by evolutionary political change, using a common electoral roll, have brought Rhodesia to majority rule. It was first accepted and then rejected by the African leaders. I think that most thoughtful Africans now regret this. Then over the years the Europeans began to harden their attitude to African participation in politics. Both these actions were mistakes of the first magnitude.
The question now is: can there be at this eleventh hour any recovery through compromise between the race which counts in numbers and the race which holds the power? We can, I hope, start from common ground in the House in that we want to try to use whatever influence we can to see whether a multi racial community can be set up in Rhodesia.
It would be a general assessment on both sides of the House that the continuation of the present constitution in Rhodesia would be likely to lead to a greater separation and increasing confrontation of the races. In the context of Africa that spells violence, and that violence would not be confined to Rhodesia. Few can contemplate that with anything but total despair.
That is one side of the matter. On the other, there is this fact of life, that NIBMAR—No Independence Before Majority African Rule—is totally unacceptable to the European electorate. The only possible conclusion, as I see it, is that political progress to parity in Parliament and then to majority rule must be gradual. There is no getting away from that. It is the only peaceful way—evolutionary change. The only possible course for Britain is to use any influence which we have to try to change the direction of the present constitution of Rhodesia and set in motion an evolutionary process leading through parity in the Parliament to majority rule. Evolutionary change was implicit both in the "Tiger" and the "Fearless" proposals. So it is in the settlement proposals agreed with Mr. Smith in November which abolished parity as an ultimate aim and substituted the ultimate aim of majority rule.
To this latest compromise proposal, made by Mr. Smith and myself, Lord

Pearce and his colleagues have said that they found the African answer was "No". That finding we have accepted. I think, from reading the report, that it is fair to conclude that the "No" related less to the actual proposals than to distrust of the Rhodesian Front Government—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may dispute this later. I do not think he will dissent broadly from what I shall say. I think the "No" related less to the actual proposals than to distrust of the Rhodesian Front Government and the doubt as to whether they would in the event keep their word. That, of course—I agree with the hon. Gentleman—does not make the future any easier unless European and African leaders can get together for the common good.
But in that context one comment should be made for the sake of the future. In turning down the proposals put forward by Mr. Smith and myself, the Africans clearly—we see this throughout the Pearce Report—clung to the belief that there would be more favourable terms to come. That emerges time and again. I must therefore do two things. First, I must make it clear that I could not in my view have negotiated better terms in November for the Africans than I was able to get then from Mr. Smith. Secondly, as Mr. Smith has lately made very clear, I could not do so now. It was my concern to gain from Mr. Smith the terms most favourable for the Africans, and that was done. I would therefore ask all Rhodesians, and particularly African Rhodesians, to study the advantages which were obtained for them, measuring them not against an ideal solution, which it seemed to me on reading the Pearce Report they were always doing, but against an indefinite continuation of the status quo in Rhodesia. As they were clearly always thinking in terms of something better, and that is not available, I would ask them to look again very carefully at what they rejected. I think I have a duty to do so as there is so much evidence throughout the Pearce Report that the only alternative to this kind of settlement is confrontation and conflict.
The proposals are still available, because Mr. Smith has not withdrawn or modified them. I would remind the House of the most important advantages the proposals would have given to the Africans in terms of a change of direction


in the constitution and in terms of a better future for them. First, under the present 1969 constitution there is an absolute bar to progress beyond parity. They cannot get beyond parity of representation in the Assembly. The proposals of November provide without impediment for progress to majority rule. Secondly, there is now no blocking mechanism to prevent retrogressive amendments to the constitution which would act to the detriment of Africans. The settlement provides one, and would arm the elected Africans with a veto on any such attempt. Thirdly, the rate of increase of the number of African Members of Parliament and the pace of their entry to Parliament are at present controlled by a calculation involving an assessment of the aggregate income of the racial groups. The basis for that calculation can be changed in any annual Finance Bill. It is a system which anyone who has studied it knows to be unfair and capricious. For this, the proposals substitute an individual qualification based on property, education and income under which there would be a steady addition of Africans to the Rhodesian Parliament, leading to majority rule.
Today there is no justiciable declaration of rights. From that omission have flowed, as many Africans told me when I was lately in Salisbury, many of the undesirable increases in racial discrimination of recent years. The settlement provides for the right of the citizen to challenge all new legislation in the courts and all new regulations under the old legislation which increase racial discrimination. At present there is no attempt to modify racial discrimination—rather the reverse. With the proposals, a commission would be set up with the positive instruction to make recommendations which would make progress towards ending racial discrimination, a goal which was specifically accepted by the Rhodesian Government, and which forms part of the proposals.
Those are some of the reasons why I feel justified in asking for further time for reflection inside Rhodesia, as we ask in the first part of our Motion. There are other reasons. Lord Pearce found that most of those to whom the Commission spoke were capable of understanding the main elements of the pro-

posals. But a week or two ago a small deputation of African National Council leaders came to see me. One of these leaders, who have responsibility for guiding African opinion, had no idea whatever that there was a blocking mechanism in the hands of the Africans to prevent modification of the entrenched provisions of the constitution against African interests—no idea whatever, and he was an African leader of the ANC. So there are, clearly, gaps in the knowledge of some Rhodesians, gaps which are fundamental to judgment.
Again, Lord Pearce reports that the young African male school leavers were unanimously against the proposals. They are the unemployed at present with very poor prospects of work, and, with unemployment seriously depressing the wage level in Rhodesia. I feel that they and their families must be given another chance to appreciate the change that the injection of£50 million for development, matched by another £50 million from the Rhodesian Government over 10 years, and the extra investment which would come from a settlement, would have on their lives, and that they should be given another chance to look at the effect on unemployment in Rhodesia. That seems to me quite necessary.
Had Mr. Nkomo not, on second thoughts, rejected the 1961 constitution, the Africans would by now have been well established as an effective and powerful Opposition in the Rhodesian Parliament, with the certain prospect of majority rule. I trust that this cardinal error of history will not be repeated by Rhodesians today.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I know that the right hon. Gentleman sincerely wants a fair picture. Notwithstanding what he has just said, does he accept paragraph 80 of the Pearce Report, in which the Commission found that
…even if details might be imperfectly grasped, there was a generally good understanding of the fundamental elements involved and, among smaller groups, the degree of comprehension was remarkably high.
Does the right hon. Gentleman subscribe to those findings?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is what the Commission found, and Lord Pearce, Lord Harlech and their colleagues are


very experienced people. I am not questioning their findings or their judgment. What I am saying is that only the week before last I found a leader of the ANC who had not the least idea of one of the main parts of the proposals—a part fundamental, I would have thought, to a judgment of the whole issue.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The right hon. Gentleman and I and two other hon. Members have had the opportunity of seeing the Executive of the ANC, and it gave evidence to Pearce in public. Whatever the deficiencies of the gentleman of whom the right hon. Gentleman is speaking, there was no question in anyone's mind that these men fully understood all the technicalities of the proposals. Nevertheless, quite sincerely and massively they rejected it.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I accept what Lord Pearce found in general, but the question of the blocking mechanism was essential to a judgment of the proposals. Not to know about it in a position of leadership is something which should be remedied. All I am asking is more time for the Africans to understand these things fully.
In the earlier months of this Parliament, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) used barely to conceal his conviction that the Government would act in bad faith. Others, here and overseas, took their cue from him. I ask the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who now speaks on foreign affairs for the Opposition, not to fall into the same kind of error, into which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East was so prone to jump with both feet. The Pearce Report has said "No" and we have accepted that the African answer was "No". We said that we would negotiate within the five principles, and we did so. We promised that the Commission would be impartial and objective, and it has been conspicuously so.
I ask the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East in particular to believe that our sole purpose throughout—and it is our purpose now—has been to prevent in Rhodesia polarisation of the races which would be bound to end in racial conflict. That is our purpose. I take it that it is the right hon. Gentleman's also, although

he may quarrel with some of our methods.
The report shows that the great majority in Rhodesia of all races still want a compromise. Only a very few of the Africans gave as a reason for rejecting the proposals a desire for immediate majority rule. Europeans were almost unanimous in their readiness to move off their present constitution—and this is significant—to one which lessened racial discrimination and led them past parity to majority rule. The Asians and the Coloureds were in favour.
I have no doubt of the reason. It is perhaps most graphically expressed by one who is well known to many in the House as a believer in the multi-racial society. Mr. David Butler wrote to the Commission:
There are only two ways in which Africans here can advance. One is by revolution…and the other is by constitutional evolution which is only possible within a system acceptable to white Rhodesians.
That is really the fundamental problem in Rhodesia. Mr. Butler states it fairly, and it is stated by others, including Africans, in the report. That is the situation in a nutshell.
That is why it must be right to give all Rhodesians, for so many of them think in terms of compromise, time to think again—for the Africans to ask themselves whether their decision was really in the best interests of their people; for the Europeans to convince the Africans that they mean to create from now on a partnership of the races. If together they can come forward with agreement on better ideas for progress than those contained in the settlement, we shall be receptive. We have done almost everything we can to help. The effort must now come from the Rhodesians themselves.
Beside this momentous question of whether or not there is to be a truly multi-racial country in that part of Africa, other matters are almost incidental. Any future settlement would, clearly, be within the five principles. Having read the Pearce Report, I doubt whether many will question the wisdom of reserving judgment on the method to be adopted in any future test of acceptability. I think that it is only common sense to be flexible. Should any consensus emerge from Rhodesia—andwe do not know


what is to happen inside Rhodesia—the circumstances would be different from those of today.
Finally, there are sanctions. They have been on for nearly seven years, and they have not achieved a decisive political change in Rhodesia. Those who argue that another three or four years will do so have little evidence to support their view. Nevertheless, if our purpose—and this is what I am asking the House to do, and only this—is to give all Rhodesians time for sober reflection on their future, I doubt whether there will be many who question that we should at the present time preserve the status quo. I believe—and I say this straight to the House—that the time required for Rhodesians to judge and to adjust their minds again to a prospect of settlement will take us beyond November of this year.
How long, then, are sanctions to go on? I cannot tell. But this I will say to the right hon. Gentleman—that if at some future date we decide that sanctions have finally failed in their purpose, or that the evasions are so widespread that they are intolerable, we should not act in some hole and corner manner. We should come to the House and go to the United Nations and state the case plainly for a change of policy. That is how we should approach the situation. However, that is not for today, because today we are keeping the status quo, and it could go on beyond November, because we shall not hear from Rhodesia before then.
I come now to the Opposition Amendment. I rather hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not move it, and I hope still that he will not divide the House on it. I do not think that we need an Amendment to the Motion. I hope that it will be noted that the Amendment does not refer to the report or to time for reflection. Any settlement in the future will be within the five principles. I have never seen any difficulty in that and have never tried to evade it. Any fair settlement would automatically be within the five principles.
As to a British initiative to intensify sanctions, I believe that there is considerable misunderstanding. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider what I say. The Amendment implies that there

is something more that we, the British, can do. To suggest this is positively misleading, and I could not accept an Amendment which implied any such thing. I hope that no one in this House would point the finger at either the last Government or this Government on this matter. It would be totally unjust. The machinery in Britain and internationally for enforcing sanctions is there. We constantly exhort the Security Council to have the breaches stopped and to insist upon stricter observance by the international community. No accusation or exhortation can justly be aimed at Britain in this matter. If it is aimed at us it is aimed at the wrong mark. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider this, because the Amendment is misleading.
The Amendment asks that in any future discussion representatives of the Rhodesian people should take part. This is a late conversion by the Labour Party, because neither on "Tiger" nor on "Fearless" did any such thing happen. I hope to see in the next stage interracial discussions inside Rhodesia and inter-racial proposals made. Meanwhile, I will take the course, very wisely adopted by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends in the last Parliament, of leaving the options open. They did not commit themselves to any specific definition in circumstances which could not be foreseen. I cannot see how the future will develop or in what form we may be able to make progress. I am sure that if we tie ourselves down at this stage to strict definitions it will make the achievement of a fair solution less likely not more likely.

Mr. John Mendelson: Why is the right hon. Gentleman so scornful about that part of the Amendment which deals with African participation? Is it not justifiable for the House to say that, after these three experiences, two under the previous Administration and one with Lord Pearce under this Administration, it is time to learn from them and say that any discussion on the future of Rhodesia without the direct participation of the African majority is not worth while? Can we not learn from experience?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am not prepared to be lectured on this by the


hon. Gentleman, because I saw the Africans when I was in Salisbury, a great many of them.

Mr. Ivor Richard: And got the wrong answer.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I may have got the wrong answer, but at least I saw them. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not. Do not let us quarrel about this, because I hope that we need not have an Amendment to this Motion.
Finally, the Amendment says that any proposals resulting from future discussions shall be put freely and openly to the Rhodesian people as a whole for their prior acceptance or rejection. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt tell us what he means; a referendum, a commission or what? I prefer to keep the options open. The previous Government were content with the fifth principle and so am I. I have already made it clear that this Government are not in present circumstances prepared to state precisely how this principle will be satisfied, and that remains the position.
It is my considered judgment that the acceptance of the Amendment would hinder rather than help a just and honourable settlement. If approaches are made to us, it is my hope—and this is my answer to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson)—that these will come jointly from all racial groups in Rhodesia. That may be ambitious, but it would be the certain way to success.
I hope that the House will not find it necessary to divide and that the right hon. Gentleman is not trying to cook up excuses for doing so. I do not think the situation requires it. After Pearce I am asking for time in which, quietly, peacefully and, above all, without interference from outside, all Rhodesians may reflect on their country's future.
Lord Pearce has helped us to recognise the deep emotions latent among all sections of opinion in that country. In Africa perhaps more than anywhere else in the world there is deep wisdom at this time in the words "Peace be still". I am asking for time, for one more chance for the people of Rhodesia to say whether it is to be peace between the races or whether it is to be war.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave

out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof
declares that any constitutional settlement with Rhodesia must be within the five principles and calls upon the Government to intensify and strengthen the present policy of sanctions; and is further of opinion that in future discussions for such a settlement representatives of the majority of the Rhodesian people shall take part, and any proposals resulting from future discussions shall be put openly and freely to the Rhodesian people as a whole for their prior acceptance or rejection".
I listened with great care to the Foreign Secretary because I wanted to hear how he justified one of the most timid, limp, tepid and hesitating Motions that I have ever seen on the Order Paper. There are parts with which I would not quarrel just as there are certain of the right hon. Gentleman's aspirations with which I would not quarrel. I must try to separate his aspirations from his manner in attempting to avoid a Division tonight.
When he said that he is not willing to be lectured, may I say that I do not feel that it is my duty to listen to lectures from the right hon. Gentleman about the way in which I should conduct myself, especially in view of the fact that he comes here this afternoon in the light of a report from the Pearce Commission which wholly negatives all that he thought was the Africans' view about what he had done. I would not, on the grounds of the mixture of weak defiance and cajolery which characterised the Foreign Secretary's approach this afternoon, recommend my hon. Friends to vote for the Motion as it stands.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to avoid a vote—[Interruption.]—let him make up his mind. I thought he was saying a minute ago that he did want to avoid one. Does he or does he not?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am not in the least afraid of having a vote. I thought that the Labour Party would be behaving rather more responsibly if it did not have one.

Mr. Callaghan: I did not think we were talking about fear or whether anyone had courage. I thought we were talking about what was the right thing to do.
The Foreign Secretary has a difficult rôle this afternoon. He is faced with an Amendment—I do not know whether


it is to be called—tabled by some of his hon. Friends, and he has to try to carry the whole of his party along with him. Heaven knows, it is already split into three. It is a good tactic, no doubt, to try to take it out of the Opposition, but he should not expect us to sit back and listen to him talking to us about the way in which we should conduct matters when he has such a ghastly series of failures behind him. [Hon. Members:" 'Tiger' and 'Fearless'; devaluation."] I am going back much further than that, I am going back to Munich.
We do not support the Motion in its present form. I must say that I find the Foreign Secretary's attitude offensive. We do not support his Motion, and if he wants co-operation he will have to go about it in a different way. We are not surprised that some of his hon. Friends should take an entirely different view because they do not find this Motion satisfactory either. He put on record that the great majority of African people both understood the implications of the proposals and objected to them. I notice that the Motion does not accept the report.
What the Motion asks the House to do—forthe sake no doubt of his hon. Friends—is to take note of the report. He said in his speech that he accepted the report. I am glad to hear that. If that had been stated in the Motion, it might have made a bit of difference. He has recorded that the people of Rhodesia as a whole do not regard the proposals as acceptable. The hopes that he and Mr. Smith built on the proposals have collapsed and the settlement falls.
I understand that the Foreign Secretary may feel a little tetchy about all this, but he must fact the facts, and the reality of the situation, as he knows, is that, however long he waits for others to consider this matter, he will get no different answer. I am astonished at the degree of innocence he affects in telling us that reflection might mean a change of mind and trying to persuade us that the majority there under Mr. Smith are anxious and willing to proceed to improve the lot of the Africans to the point where the Africans are likely to accept it. That is too innocent to

ring true, and I do not believe anything of the sort.
What the Foreign Secretary is trying to do is to buy a few months of time on this issue, not for consideration in Africa but to help him with his difficulties in connection with more domestic problems. That is not my view alone; it is also the view of Mr. Smith. I shall return to it later.
Whatever different views we may take about the settlement proposals—and the two parties took different views—I shall probably get a considerable degree of agreement on the Government side of the House if I say that the Government were guilty of a blunder in their attitude towards the fifth principle. There was miscalculation on their part that once the agreement had been reached the giving of consent by the Africans would prove to be likely. This was the assumption upon which it was commended to the House.
Let me quote from what the British negotiators told Mr. Smith on 3rd April, 1971. This is Mr. Smith's version, but I quote it to the House as he quoted it to his House of Assembly:
British Ministers retained an open mind on this aspect
—that is, on the speed—
although there were certainly two considerations which would weigh heavily with them. First, they felt they owed it to their own consciences and to their parliamentary position to be able to stand up and say they were satisfied that by and large any agreement entered into was acceptable to Rhodesians as a whole. Secondly, they wished any such exercise to be done as quickly as possible and with as little upheaval as possible…and above all, they would not wish any test of acceptability to be regarded as a whitewash but, on the other hand, they would wish to see it came up with the right answer.
That is fair enough. Of course they wanted it to come up with the answer that the Africans agreed with the settlement that had been made, but it was at this point that the Government made a serious blunder. What the Government and Mr. Smith, apparently, acquiesced in was that the form of question that was to be put to the Africans would produce "the right answer". Let me continue with what Mr. Smith had to say:
The British negotiators expressed the view that there would be little doubt of the result if the Commission approached the inquiry with the object of determining whether the


people preferred the settlement proposals to retaining the present position.
So the question was to be put in this form:
Do you prefer the settlement proposals, or do you insist on remaining under the present Constitution?
Mr. Smith goes on to say:
This attitude was maintained by the negotiators throughout the negotiations and indeed as late as 21st September, 1971.

Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler (King's Lynn) rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I will give way in a moment. It is still the custom of the House that hon. Members can choose when to give way. I am still in the middle of my point.
The difficulty arises because the Africans have refused to accept that these are the only two alternatives. The Africans have refused either to remain under the 1969 Constitution or to accept that the Constitution which has been devised for them by the Smith-Home agreement is the alternative they must have. They choose neither, and when the Foreign Secretary begins to accept this, we are likely to move ahead. The Africans insist that they are free to, and intend to, reject both the existing Constitution and these new arrangements.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many times during the period of office of the previous Government the Africans had the opportunity of taking part in any discussions whatever with the British Government on the various proposals which were discussed between the former British Government and the illegal régime?

Mr. Callaghan: I am not ready to go into that matter, because I have a speech here which I wish to make.—[Laughter.]—I shall make it in my own way in spite of the derision. If this is the general attitude in African debates, I am glad that I have been spared them for some time.
I am trying to make the case, as I see it, in relation to the Pearce Commission. The fact that the British negotiators and Mr. Smith insisted on the Africans choosing between the 1969 Constitution and the new arrangements was put clearly to them

by the Commissioners. The Commissioners are not at fault here. Lord Pearce and his colleagues put the question in the way in which the British Cabinet wanted it put.
I will quote from the introductory paragraph 4 of the document which was distributed which was known as the "Black Book":
If you do accept"—
that is, the Rhodesians—
then the present dispute will end and Britain will declare to all the world that your country is now independent. If you do not accept then things will continue as they are at present and how this will turn out no one can easily say.
That is clear. It is exactly the way in which the Foreign Secretary wanted the question put. The question was put in that way and the Commission got an answer. Seven hundred thousand copies of this document were issued, and the answer was clear. Although the Foreign Secretary has found one leader of the ANC who does not understand it, that does not override the conclusions of the Pearce Commission. As he did not seem to think it did, I wondered why it was necessary for him to refer to it. Perhaps there was a case for referring to it as a case of misunderstanding when we consider the failure of the present Government to understand even the most elementary aspect of industrial relations.
There is one sentence in this introductory paragraph which the Foreign Secretary will have to live up to—and so far he has. We want to pin him on this. This is what was said to the Rhodesian people, both European and African:
Britain will agree to what the people of Rhodesia as a whole may decide.
That is what the Foreign Secretary has lived up to in accepting the verdict of Pearce. I hope that he will continue to live up to it in this interim period of reflection he now wants us to undertake.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the fifth principle. I have said that we accept the fifth principle. Perhaps he will consult his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) before he goes much further. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East said on 11th March that the five principles must now go over-board.

Mr. Callaghan: There is certainly a logical and sophisticated case for arguing that, if African representatives take a full part in the next series of negotiations, the first four principles are covered by their attendance, especially if they are allowed fully to participate and to join in the conclusions. But to argue from that, as the Foreign Secretary has done this afternoon, that there is no prospect of this kind of situation emerging and then to raise the question of whether the five principles disappear, seems to be indicative of the Foreign Secretary's whole approach to the question. I did not get the impression from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that he wanted to do anything but shuffle off this problem as quickly as he could.
I come to the next step. Mr. Smith is in no doubt as to what his next steps are. He has not budged from the original position which was taken between himself and the British Government. His words are in strong contrast to the rather limp attitude we have had from the Foreign Secretary. I shall quote what Mr. Smith said to the House of Assembly just a week ago:
If therefore the Africans of Rhodesia want a settlement, they will have to reverse the Pearce verdict. The terms of the settlement are not negotiable. These were agreed by the British and Rhodesian Governments last November and there is no question of amending them in order to make any further concessions to the Africans or to anybody else. The hon. Member for Kunyasi and other hon. Members on the cross benches appealed to me to talk to the Africans, to discuss with them ways and means of achieving a settlement. Because the terms already agreed with the British Government are not negotiable, there is no point whatever in my talking to people whose object is to get these terms amended. However, I will be happy to talk to anybody who is prepared to accept these terms.
What, then, is the period of reflection to be about? If that is the attitude of the major partner in these discussions, what will happen? The Foreign Secretary knows as well as I do Mr. Smith's views. Is he now trying to kid the House for a little longer while he gets the European Communities Bill through the House? Is that his purpose? No doubt he thinks that that suggestion is unworthy and I will deal with that view a little later. We shall see what Mr. Smith believes is the reason for what he regards as a change of attitude by the British Government.
I wish to make one other quotation from Mr. Smith's speech in the House of Assembly:
Therefore, if the Africans wish to have a settlement they must put aside all extraneous factors and decide whether they wish to retain the 1969 Constitution and, the status quo or whether they wish to move forward under the proposed new Constitution. That is the only question to be answered…
It is not the only question and the Africans will insist that it is not, British opinion would insist that it is not and opinion in Africa as a whole and indeed throughout the world will insist that it is not.
As events unfold in the years ahead, Mr. Smith will find many alternative questions will arise that he will have to answer, and they will be presented in a much sharper manner than these questions are being presented now. Many of us in the 1950s watched the so-called fancy franchises which were erected in Northern Rhodesia and Kenya. They were invented, implemented and disregarded almost at the rate of one a year. When I look at the nature of the latest Constitution, I am led to consider what advantages it has over the 1969 Constitution. In some respects it is an advance on the 1969 situation. However, whatever improvement is there, it is still in the realm of other fancy franchises which were discarded and swept away and then put in the dustbin of history. I do not know how long the 1969 Constitution will last; it may last for a little while. Mr. Smith controls the Armed Forces, the police and in the last resort power determines what happens in these matters—for a time, but not for ever.
I am sure that these are not the last words on this matter and, if Mr. Smith pretends that they are, he is spitting into the wind. Whatever Mr. Smith may say about the only two choices that are open, it is important that the British Government should clearly state their position. Mr. Smith gives the impression that the British Government would not be a party to any renegotiation. That impression can be derived from his words. I am not sure whether he means it, but that is the way I read his words. He is saying that, because an agreement has been entered into between the British Government and himself, there can be no renegotiation.
I ask the Government to make it clear that Britain is not standing out against


further negotiations. Is that so? I do not ask for an answer now, but I hope that this question will be dealt with in the debate tonight. It is an important question which should be dealt with.
Is Britain saying that this is the last word and that there can be no renegotiation? Mr. Smith states that it is the last word. The Foreign Secretary's attitude is on the lines, "I cannot get any more, it may not be perfect, but it is as much I can get because Mr. Smith will not go any further." It will be wrong of Mr. Smith to convey to the Africans or to anybody else that because that agreement has been made, it is inviolable as the British Government will not reopen it. We must have a clear understanding from the British Government that they would be willing to reopen these terms to give greater advantage to the African majority and that the British Government would have no objection to reopening negotiations or standing in the way of that course.
If the Foreign Secretary is trying to build up a common attitude then he should go further, because we regard it as reasonable at this stage that Africans should be brought into the negotiations. If anybody pauses to reflect on the events of the last 12 months in Northern Ireland, he must see how Government opinion and the opinions of others can change and develop. It is not of much interest to talk about what happened in 1967 or 1964 or at any other time. We are asking about circumstances of today when the Africans for the first time have been given the right of veto and have exercised it. If there is to be further negotiation and discussion and conclusions reached, it would be more sensible to bring in those who might have a veto at the moment when the conclusions are being formed, rather than to reach conclusions and then ask "What is your view about them?"
The fact that the Pearce Commission reported in the way that it did has meant that the centre of gravity has moved in terms of the Africans and their position in the situation far beyond the situation at any earlier time. We shall never be able to go back to the previous period—unless there is a scuttle, and I do not believe that the Foreign Secretary will scuttle on this issue. He may declare to Mr. Smith that the Government must

pay regard to their own principles. Therefore, unless there is a scuttle, the Africans will have to be brought in and take a full part if a settlement is to be a lasting settlement.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The right hon. Gentleman speaks about the "Africans". Which Africans does he mean? Is he referring to the Mashone, the Matabele, the elected Africans in Parliament, or the leaders of the African National Council? Who would represent the Africans?

Mr. Callaghan: I would listen to what the Foreign Secretary had to say on that matter. I shall not go into details as to who would represent anybody. The hon. Gentleman and I visited the country together in 1957 and I learned sufficient about the situation not to commit myself about who should be the representatives. It is surely not beyond the wit of man to work out from whom the representatives should be drawn. I accept that Bishop Muzorewa and the African National Council should be included. It is certainly long overdue for Mr. Nkomo to be charged or released from the detention in which he is held—[Interruption.] I do not know whether there is any evidence against him. It would appear they do not have much or they would have brought him to trial.
Certainly I say to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) that Garfield Todd, who was Prime Minister when we were there, and who I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree is a man of great honour and distinction, should be released from house arrest and might take part in the talks. There will be no difficulty in selecting a number of people able to speak more truly for the Africans in Southern Rhodesia today than does Mr. Smith, who does not even pretend to do so.
The immediate point is that Mr. Smith should not be allowed to get away with the idea that these terms cannot be renegotiated. They can be, and in my view they will be. I say that because the existing situation is unstable and because the present constitution is unjust. At present, Britain is tied by the Africans' refusal to agree to the present terms and by Smith's refusal to renegotiate them. The right hon. Gentleman recognises that Britain cannot proceed on her own to


implement the agreement or to pass the necessary legislation in this House. Indeed, I doubt whether he would get a majority if he tried, and I have no doubt that that has crossed his mind.
Should Britain withdraw? That is the alternative posed in the Amendment tabled by a number of hon. Members opposite. They peddle this alternative. From what should we be withdrawing? What should we leave behind if we came out of our continuing responsibilities? In what situation should we leave the Africans and others? Let me quote the present Foreign Secretary on this topic. The right hon. Gentleman adverted to it again today, but he spoke about it in more detail in our debate on 1st December.
If we were to leave Rhodesia in the present circumstances, this is what we should be leaving behind us, according to the right hon. Gentleman. He said that he found that aspects of the Land Tenure Act were unwarranted and offensive in their discrimination. Those who would bring us out and who ask us to forgo any responsibilities would be asking us to leave that situation behind.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he found the present atmosphere was such that it was easy for ordinary critics of the régime to be accused of treasonable conduct to their country. Those are not my words; they are the right hon. Gentleman's. So the critics of the Government on the benches opposite ask us to leave that situation behind and to disclaim responsibility for it.
The right hon. Gentleman concluded that the income tax test for African representation was hopeless and unjustifiable. Again the right hon. Gentleman's words, not mine. The critics who want us to pull out ask us to leave behind that situation, too.
Finaly, the right hon. Gentleman told us that the mechanism for preventing a backwards movement for the Africans in the matter of the constitution was totally inadequate. Those are strong words. They are to be contrasted with limp deeds and a pretty limp speech today to follow them. In the face of those words, if those are the right hon. Gentleman's conclusions, as they are, how could a British Government abdicate their responsibility

and at the same time keep their honour? Perhaps we cannot discharge our mandate fully. But we cannot deny it, as critics on the benches opposite would have us do. We have a responsibility there. The fact that we are not able fully to carry it out does not mean that we can escape from it. It means that we have to try to put ourselves in a position in which we can continue to influence events.
On the main issue I say to the Smith régime and to the Africans that we regret that there is as yet no basis upon which Britain can honourably yield legal independence to Rhodesia. Therefore we shall maintain our legal relationship and our trustee status for as long as is necessary to satisfy the principles clearly laid down by a Conservative Government in the first place and adhered to by my Government when we were in power.
We should say to Smith and the Africans—it will fall on deaf ears; nevertheless we should state our position—"We advise you to enter into discussions with each other which may lead to negotiations as a first step to later negotiations with Britain in which we shall wish to see the Smith régime and the Opposition coming, as well as representatives of all the African parties. Then, at that stage, we can look at the possibility of removing the legal impediments which hinder your development". That is what we should say to them. But does anyone seriously believe that there is any prospect of Smith taking this line with the Africans? There is not a hope. As matters stand at present, there is not a chance. In those circumstances, I feel justified in saying that we are debating one of the limpest Motions ever to appear on the Order Paper of this House. "In the meantime", we should say to them, "you must take it that the policy of trade sanctions will be pursued with vigour both by us and through the machinery of the United Nations."
I believe that that should be our general approach. Events in due course will take charge of the situation. People can stand against the bar of history for some time, but not for ever. Although Smith or others may try to hold back the onrush, at some stage he and those who try to hold it back will be swept away. I much prefer the attitude which tries to channel that onrush into more constructive paths.


I believe that this should be the message going out from this House.
I can remember Smith trying to convince his party by saying, "If we do not accept the settlement, the future for our children in 10 or 20 years' time will be much blacker than it is now." Whatever views we may take about that settlement, if they adhere to the 1969 constitution there is no doubt where we are heading, and the Foreign Secretary and I are in agreement on that.
However, that leads me to believe, contrary apparently to the right hon. Gentleman, that we have to state frankly and fully to Smith where we stand on these issues. He must recognise what he is facing not only for the sake of some legal relationship between Westminster and Rhodesia but for his own sake, for the sake of Europeans there and for the sake of their children. All of them have an interest in this. Speaking for myself, nothing would please me more than to see in that country, especially when I look round some of the other African countries and remember the vigour and intelligence that that country can command, a non-racial approach to its development. It would be a tremendous lesson to the whole of Africa as well as to wider areas of the world.
Can anyone say, bearing in mind Smith's attitude at the moment, that such a situation is likely to come about? The statesmanship must come from him. He has the Government. He has the power. He has the ability to make the changes. The Africans have not. What every one of us has seen time after time is that what is not conceded to reason eventually yields to force. There have been many lessons of this in our own history. Surely now it is the right hon. Gentleman's job to take Smith by the hand and to say to him that this is our assessment of the situation.
There are a number of detailed points which arise and which perhaps some of my hon. Friends will take up in the course of the debate. We should have a discussion today on how to prevent the leaks in the sanctions policy. I do not point the finger at the right hon. Gentleman. Nor do I point the finger only at the United States in relation to the chrome situation. There are divided opinions there. I point the finger at the

Foreign Secretary, however, for instructing our delegate to abstain on the last sanctions Resolution. There ought to be no more of that in the future.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The Labour Party's Amendment refers to strengthening the intensification of sanctions. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's supporters and others in many parts of the House feel that aid to and trade with the Third World is a responsibility to which this country should pay heed. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain where the morality lies in subjecting only one country in Africa to the very opposite process, pushing it down by the intensification of sanctions so that the standard of living of everyone, including the Africans, is reduced?

Mr. Callaghan: The United Nations has taken a decision on this matter to which we adhere and which we should attempt to enforce. This is a question of many conflicting moralities, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman should not attempt to pick out that little bit of the argument which seems to suit his purpose. This is one way in which this country can demonstrate that it still regards its legal obligations as important.
I do not believe that sanctions will bring down the régime. History and experience has shown that that is so, but if, as the Foreign Secretary hinted, the Government were to go to the United Nations and say that they believe that the time had come to withdraw sanctions, against the background which the right hon. Gentleman has stated, of the unsatisfactory nature of the constitution, the credibility of this country would be at an end in the world. That is the reason why the Foreign Secretary is not willing to reach such a decision, despite the pressure from the lobby behind him, and I am glad that so far he has stood up to it.
We ought to have more discussions on how to prevent breaches. A number of countries are breaking these rules. There have been suggestions—I shall not go into them now—about how the matter should be dealt with. Some of my hon. Friends will want to raise questions about the detention of Joshua Nkomo and


Garfield Todd and his daughter and the arrest of Mr. and Mrs. Chinamano, all held without access to friends or allowed to receive letters or even to make telephone calls.
This is still our responsibility, even if we cannot carry out our mandate on these matters. The Foreign Secretary should continue to be both vigilant and active on this question even though success has not yet been achieved. We shall not criticise the right hon. Gentleman if he is not successful, but we shall criticise him if he does not continue to make the effort.
We shall also expect the right hon. Gentleman to watch carefully the fortunes of the African National Council. There is great fear—and with justification—that now that the Pearce Commission is over Smith will use or abuse his position to break the African National Council. They must be very unsure of themselves, and they are acting like dictators when they ban a party membership card of the African National Council as being an unlawful publication under the Law and Order Act. That brings law and order itself into contempt, and I should like to hear anybody justify that action by the Smith régime.
If the agreement is not to come into force, how can we help African education forward in order to train a cadre of people who will be able in due course to take their place in governing their country? That is a responsibility which we have if we are to try to discharge this mandate in due course. Smith may not like it because he sees in every educated African capable of running the country an enemy of white supremacy and domination, but it is our responsibility to see, as far as we can from outside the country, that Africans are trained for this purpose.
In short, we expect the Foreign Secretary to challenge any acts of bad faith by the Smith régime to move towards creeping apartheid. The right hon. Gentleman must maintain vigilance over events in Rhodesia and create a machinery in the Foreign Office and elsewhere which will enable him to maintain that vigilance and be ready, wherever opportunity offers to reassert the authority of Britain in this matter.
I understand the limitations, but Mr. Smith must also understand that this issue is by no means dead. We regret that the present situation has come to the point that it has. We would welcome a genuine non-racial society in that country. There is no doubt that it needs it. A developing country of that sort, with the growth in population which I see has taken place, needs a large injection of fresh capital every year if it is to progress. Indeed, in terms of capital development one has only to look at the statistics to see that it is suffering from pernicious anaemia.
The terms of trade are adverse because, despite some successful attempts to break sanctions, they rely so much on the export of raw materials, minerals and foodstuffs. With exports increasing by 9 per cent. a year, and imports increasing by 20 per cent. a year, without foreign exchange, and without the injection of outside capital, that country will indue course go backwards and everyone will suffer, including the Africans. It is therefore in the interests of us all to try to bring that situation to an end. The net capital inflow is no more than £12 million a year, and that is insufficient to keep pace with the growing population and labour force.
These facts have to be brought home to Smith. It is all very well to say that the Africans suffer from this policy. They have shown that they are willing to suffer because of it because there are other considerations in their minds. The white Rhodesians must see that they can have what is needed to overcome these difficulties into which they have plunged themselves but that first they must be prepared to recognise that the present policies which they are following and the constitution which they have do not satisfy their population, do not satisfy this country, and will not satisfy other nations in the world as the situation develops.
Their future intentions in this matter are not acceptable. They must come to terms with the legitimate aspirations of the African people. If they do that, if they are willing first to share power and then to acknowledge that in due course they will yield power, then Rhodesians, Europeans and Africans alike could still live in what might become a happy and prosperous country.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: I found the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Calaghan) more than ordinarily disappointing. He made an aggressive, bad-tempered and thoroughly unconstructive speech. He descended after a few sentences to party calculation and, generally, that is where he stayed.
The right hon. Gentleman's remarks bordered at times on the ridiculous when he accused my right hon. Friend of what he called "a ghastly series"—

Mr. Ronald Bell: Does my hon. Friend think that it was right of him to overhear the speech addressed by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to his own back-benchers?

Mr. Hastings: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend has made an apt comment, and I was coming to something of the same sort.
I cannot resist reminding the House that the right hon. Gentleman accused my right hon. Friend of "a ghastly series of failures" which appeared to go back to the Conquest. There is only one basis of comparison between the two sides of the House on this matter. One is "Tiger" and "Fearless", and the other is the agreement reached with the Rhodesian Government in November last. "Tiger" and "Fearless" may not have been "ghastly failures", but they can scarcely be claimed to have been successes.
It is understandable, as my hon. and learned Friend said, that the right hon. Gentleman should seek to raise the temperature of the House this afternoon because hon. Gentleman opposite have been walking both ways for months. They have been arguing with one another in public and in private. They have been saying one thing, and voting another, and it must be with delight that they turn to a subject on which they feel they can all agree for once. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was addressed to them rather than to the House or to the situation which we are supposed to be considering this afternoon. It is far too serious a matter to have merited a contribution such as his.
The right hon. Gentleman made one reference to the Amendment which has been tabled, though not called, by some of my right hon. Friends and myself, and I must pick him up on that one point. He made it blatantly clear that he interpreted it as a suggestion to the Government that we should leave Rhodesia and our responsibilities there. It does not say that at all, and one glance at it would convince anybody that that is so.
We say that we hope that the Government will institute the agreement which they have so wisely and well achieved, and we think that it is so important that if it or something like it is not achieved, we see little purpose any more in any British Government purporting to control the situation in Rhodesia. That, in sum, is what we say.
All my right hon. and hon. Friends and many other hon. Members will agree with me if I begin by expressing my sympathy to the Foreign Secretary that, after all his efforts and the great achievement that he made at the end of last year in reaching agreement with the Rhodesian Government, it should apparently, and for the time being, have come to naught. To him, to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and all those who contributed to that achievement our sympathy today should go out.
And if the House will tolerate it, I should like also to offer sympathy, on my part anyway, to the Rhodesian Government. In spite of the mistakes and mis-judgments which they have made and may be making, they did their level best to make this inquiry succeed, as Chapter 10 of the report makes absolutely clear. They staked much; and concessions, in the siege atmosphere of Rhodesia, isolated as it is, are no easy matter. It behoves us to be conscious of that as well.
The central fact which we should face—andlet us put aside the moral posturing that so often accompanies our debates in this place and in the country on this subject; the party calculations; the speculations about what might or might not happen at the United Nations or in other parts of Africa; or whether Nigeria will or will not nationalise our oil—the central fact is that, against all the odds, a very good deal indeed, the best since UDI, was obtained for the Rhodesian people in November last. It has been lost, and with


it a great chance for Rhodesia and for the stability of central Africa as a whole. It fell at the last fence on the assessment of opinion, under the fifth principle, and it is a tragedy, virtually unmitigated.
It is no satisfaction whatever to me or to any of us—there were one or two—who said consistently that the fifth principle could not be practically or fairly implemented—[Interruption.] There are two opinions on this. I am trying to put mine, and I believe that the evidence in the report bears me out.
The task which faced Lord Pearce and his Commissioners was appallingly difficult—as they themselves make plain at the outset. I express my respect of and indeed admiration for them for their persistence and indeed their courage, because some of their experiences must have been alarming. But that is no reason why we should not examine the report critically. My own concern about its contents, and leading to its conclusion, centre on five separate points.
First, the weighting of their judgment was plainly quantitative rather than qualitative. They make this clear on page 40. Yet this quantitative judgment, apart from any other objections to it, was based on only 5·8 per cent. of the African population—and it is overwhelmingly the African population with whom we are concerned. No special weight was given to Africans who, professionally or economically, are contributing disproportionately, in terms of the population as a whole, to Rhodesian life. It could well have been argued, and it was argued, that they understood much better what was at stake than did many others—[Laughter.] If I could be allowed to continue, what I have to say has great relevance in Rhodesia.
For instance, it is maintained that senior teachers in schools were far more in favour than juniors. What weight, if any, was given to that? Apparently, none at all. In a country which ranges—anyone who knows Rhodesia will confirm this—from primitive societies to what can fairly be termed an advanced technological society, it is nonsense to take no account of qualitative weighting but simply to form one's decisions on quantity alone. Every constitution which has been debated or applied in Rhodesia

has taken account of this, so it was surely wrong for the Commission to write it down as it did.
My second worry lies in what I term the imbalance of propaganda or persuasion. The report makes it clear that the ANC was active in all areas four weeks before the Commission arrived. Yet the effort to "sell" the proposals, on the other hand, was taken up only in the last few days or a week or two of the Commission's time in Rhodesia. It was carried out by the Committee to Organise Support for the Settlement, by the Progressive Liberal Forum and by an organisation known as the People against Racial Discrimination. But they came into the field very late indeed, while the Rhodesian Administration itself, according to the Commission, did nothing to sell the proposals anywhere.
This may have been very silly—I accept that—and I agree with a remark by my right hon. Friend some time ago that Mr. Smith and the Government appeared to be quite confident that the answer would be "Yes". In other words, they were out of touch. I am not arguing with that. I am simply saying that the evidence in this report appears to show that those who were for "No" were arguing and preparing before the Commission arrived and that those who were for "Yes" started only at the last moment. At the very least that should have alerted the Commission to the danger of error.

Mr. Richard: Would the hon. Gentleman consider paragraph 415 on page 111:
We do not think the African National Council would have obtained so great and so swift a response had they not met a potential desire among the majority of the people for leadership in a rejection of the terms and in a protest against the policies of the last few years."?
Does he accept that?

Mr. Hastings: If we are to start quoting at one another, I have a few quotations that I would like to make myself. I am simply maintaining that there are contradictory views in this report. My own opinion on this point is that the inequality of the advocacy as it was conducted is something that the Commissioners should have taken into account more than they apparently did.
I want to turn, third, to the question of intimidation. The Commission, to my mind, appeared to take this far too lightly and to discount much of what the Rhodesian Government reported. What they put into their own report is, I suppose, necessarily selective, but take for instance one part of the evidence submitted by the Rhodesian branch of the Institute of Directors—[An Hon. Member: "It was very good."] Indeed it was. It said:
We cannot claim to represent the current collective views of the African employees of our members because in many instances these have changed drastically in the past few weeks, due to large-scale intimidation in the form of threats of violence and, far worse to the majority of Africans, witchcraft effecting employees, their families, cattle, crops etc. This intimidation is indisputable and our members have ample evidence of this which, if required, can be submitted in the form of written evidence.
In this long report, I have sought to find that and I cannot find a trace of it anywhere. If it exists, I should be interested to see it and I hope that it will be placed in the Library.
No one who knew Rhodesia in 1960 will ever underestimate the power, the speed, the cruelty and the evil of African nationalist intimidation at its worst—the maiming and the brutal killing of cattle, the threats, the stoppage of contour farming and dipping of cattle. Perhaps hon. Members do not know it, but if those two practices are stopped, the agricultural economy is ruined in the tribal trust lands in no time at all. That is what they were doing.
It was all happening again on this occasion, if only briefly, and many of the same men were there and were at it. The Commission made an attempt to follow up some of these cases, but only a few—they had no time for any more. In my view they underestimated the result—that is, with some glaring exceptions, to which I shall turn in a moment or two.
The fourth of my worries about the report is regarding the understanding of the settlement. The terms of reference required the Commission to "explain" the terms of the settlement, but not to satisfy themselves that these were properly understood. The report certainly seeks to examine Commissioner's views on this point, but the evidence is equivocal. They

say that they were satisfied. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party alluded to paragraph 80, which is certainly in this vein. But at the same time, at paragraph 208 on page 56, we read:
Clearly there were many Africans who at the end of our labours had at best a limited understanding of the Proposals. Few could understand the full complexities of an elaborate constitutional document.
That was a "few" of only 5·8 per cent of the total African population.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) rose—

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will not the hon. Gentleman continue? The next sentence says:
But all our teams of Commissioners except one…concluded that a majority of the Africans whom they met sufficiently understood the basic principles and implications of the proposals to pass a valid judgment on them.

Mr. Hastings: Some understood and some did not and I have quoted an undeniable passage in the report.
That leads me to the fifth of my five worries about the report, and that concerns the minority or dissenting reports among the Commissioners. They came from two teams, the team operating in Matabeleland, North, and the team operating in Victoria. I make no apology to the House for quoting two passages which allude to this, and anyone who takes a responsible and sensible interest in this matter ought to read those minority reports in full. They do not exist in the body of the Pearce report. I ask my right hon. Friend to place them in the Library so that we can judge the reasons for their most important and significant dissent.
I turn first to page 109 and in this connection we read:
One of our teams concluded that because of the amount of intimidation at the public meetings which may have prevented many people from saying 'Yes' and because a significant section of the population in the Tribal Trust Lands and labour on European farms in that area had neither heard of nor in any way understood the Proposals, they were unable to determine whether the Proposals were acceptable to the people as a whole or not. Another team reported that bcause of their inability to assess accurately the very important question as to how far the results obtained were induced by the conssequences of intimidation, they must de-value the mass meetings as a means of obtaining genuine opinion and found that the evidence received


by other means was so divided as to prevent them from arriving at a firm conclusion.

An Hon. Member: And the next sentence.

Mr. Richard: The hon. Gentleman is being much less than fair, either to his case or to the House. The very next sentence in the report says:
These latter Commissioners, when questioned, stated however that while they were unable to say that the answer was 'No', they could emphatically say that it was not 'Yes'.

Mr. Hastings: Certainly. But I am getting a little tired of giving way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am trying to lead to a conclusion which bears very much on what he said.
I am not arguing that the Commission could possibly have been represented as having said "Yes", but my quotation there was entirely relevant to my argument.
I turn to page 200 in the same connection. Here we read from the team for Victoria Province:
Our impression throughout the Province was that pressured persuasion, in varying degree, was a major factor at all save private interviews. Such persuasion was almost entirely by African on Africans.
But the House can read it for itself. It was perfectly plain that these teams had no confidence in their ability to assess judgment because of intimidation.
It may be argued that those were only two teams and this is the way that Lord Pearce and the rest of his colleagues saw it. But those were two teams out of seven, or nearly one third of those engaged in assessment in the Tribal Trust Lands.
Now, the Commission clearly state, just before its conclusions, in a most important passage:
Because these other Commissioners"—
that is to say, those not in the two teams but in the five, the majority—
concluded that despite such degree of intimidation as they found, the clear answer from the great majority of Africans was 'No'. Therefore the answer was overwhelmingly 'No'.
I am no lawyer, but I assert that the position could have been deduced in a very different way. They could have said that "because nearly one third of the teams operating in the Tribal Trust Lands

found it impossible to assess with any certainty, we must qualify our judgment in this respect". That is what they should have done.
Mut despite the neat, concise, one-page conclusion, the report is shot through—it is not unfair to say this as I have alluded to the immense difficulty of the task as a whole—with evidence of experiment, hypothesis and uncertainty. In one of the early chapters on "The description of work" we read that:
Sometimes Commissioners had too short a time for explaining the Proposals adequately, at other times they were obliged to cut short a meeting to travel on to the next place. They needed more flexibility to enable them to make unscheduled visits and unplanned stops in an effort to probe beneath the apparent concensus views expressed at large public meetings.
On the next page we read:
The meetings were frequently lively and vociferous and sometimes tense, so that it was often impossible for our Commissioners to see small groups or individuals apart from the main meeting. Explanation of the Proposals was followed by question time, after which came the moment to invite the expression of an opinion. Opportunity was given to the crowd to split up into small groups or individuals for this purpose, but this was only rarely accepted, the crowd strongly preferring to shout out the answer or raise their hands to indicate a massive consensus.
Again, we read:
The presence of a group of people committed to a rejection of the Proposals often
—I repeat "often"—
reduced the quality of the dialogue since such people tended merely to repeat the same arguments in favour of rejection and to shout down anyone else likely to express a contrary opinion.
I would not wish to detain the House more with quotations of this nature. Certainly they can be found in fair profusion in the report.
I simply do not believe that the situation in Central Africa, complicated and complex as it is, can possibly be susceptible to legalistic judgments of this kind, or to anything bordering on the clear-cut "guilty or not guilty".
One other point I should have mentioned: there is evidence that 1 per cent, only said "Yes" in public, whereas 15 per cent, did so in private. What is the implication?
I am not suggesting that the African answer could possibly be represented as "Yes", from the evidence in the report. But whatever judgment was reached on


the basis of this report should clearly have been heavily qualified and it was not.
Anything so hideously complex and important as the future of millions of people of different races in Central Africa is simply not susceptible to clear-cut judgments of this kind.
Such an answer should never have been sought, and on the basis of what we read in the report it should certainly never have been given.
Now it is up to my right hon. Friend to take up the burden again. I agree there should be a period of reflection. But for how many months? There is a difference between a period of reflection of two or three months, and one of a couple of years. I would counsel speed because I do not believe that attitudes in Rhodesia can do anything but harden as time goes on. And why does he say the next move is up to the Rhodesians? Both Government and Parliament insist that we have the responsibility. The Government got so close this time. Let them keep up the dialogue and let there be no undue delay.
The present festering uncertainty—for that is what it is—is a disgrace to us all in this place. The test of acceptability was a mistake. The original judgment and achievement of my right hon. Friend was right. It was right and in the interests of all the people of Rhodesia. Let him try again, and let him try soon. And this time, I entreat him to trust his own great wisdom and judgment, for I believe it to be a sounder guide than anything we read in the Pearce Report.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) for bringing at least one element of realism into the debate. The House of Commons, separated by many thousands of miles from Rhodesia, will at least see something of the mentality of the Rhodesian Front and the difficulty of negotiating with it in terms of the multi-racialism in which we in the House of Commons believe.
The hon. Gentleman also practised what he preached. He said that we must give up moral posturings; and very soon afterwards he succeeded in doing so in his speech.
The Amendment to which the hon. Gentleman has put his name says, basically, "We do not mind the Fifth Principle, but we do not think that it is possible realistically to apply it. Therefore, let us scrap it and force through a settlement or, alternatively, scuttle from our responsibilities". It is rather like the young candidate who said at the end of his election address, "These are my principles. If you do not like them, I have others."
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman made quite such selective use of the Pearce Report as did Mr. Smith himself. "His master's voice" is not quite as effective in that matter as was Mr. Smith when I saw him on television.

Mr. Hastings: On that last point, the right hon. Gentleman has made a fairly predictable attack on what I said, in what I believe was a genuine and serious attempt to put the matter objectively. The right hon. Gentleman called Mr. Smith, my "master". In what respect?

Mr. Thorpe: Certainly. I said that about the hon. Gentleman advisedly. Mr. Smith has been in rebellion against the Crown. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may or may not like it, but Mr. Smith happens to have been in rebillion against the Crown. If in any way I am legally incorrect, no doubt the hon. Gentleman will correct me. Mr. Smith made an illegal declaration of independence against the Crown.
It happens that every Member of the House has taken an oath of loyalty to the Crown. On many occasions there has been something very close to a conflict on the part of those who have shown that their loyalty to Mr. Smith is so great that I should have thought that, not least in the recommendations that have been made in regard to that rebellion, these must have tried their consciences and caused them to suffer a conflict of conscience on many occasions. In the hon. Gentleman's case, whose loyalty to the Crown cannot be questioned, in the support he has been seen to have been giving to Mr. Smith ever since the UDI, he must have suffered grave twinges of conscience. That is what I meant by my assertion.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the qualitative and quantitative test and repeated Mr. Smith's argument that only


a small percentage of the population was consulted. The fact that 120,000 Africans were seen covering every one of the 50 administrative provinces, plus the map at the back of the report showing the scheduled and the unscheduled trips, leads me to suppose that the Pearce Commissioners are probably at this moment better informed as to African opinion in Rhodesia than any other body of men now or at any time.
As far as we know Mr. Smith's view, certainly before the test of acceptability, it was the oversimplification—"We have the happiest Africans on the African continent". How wrong he was.
That is one of the reasons why Mr. Smith was a little slow on his propaganda; because he assumed that he could rely upon the chiefs to deliver the vote. There has been talk of intimidation, but even when the chiefs were seen in private they produced a different report from that which they had given in public and there was a majority of them who were either opposed to the settlement or who abstained from expressing an opinion, many of whom publicly felt that they had to say that they were in favour of it.
Therefore, I am not very impressed either with the morality or with the logic of the Amendment to which the hon. Gentleman has appended his name.
Having said that, I believe that the House does itself a disservice if we underestimate the matters upon which the House of Commons is agreed—the principles which unite both sides of the House. That is why I believe that the drafters of the Government's Motion have been somewhat maladroit and could have bound the House together without, possibly, the necessity for a Division save from their own Rhodesian lobby.
The Motion merely asks the House to take note of the report and expresses the hope that there will be time for reflection. I should have thought that the Government could have been a little more generous: expressed their gratitude to Lord Pearce, accepted Lord Pearce's conclusions, said that they would keep on sanctions, and said that their ultimate objective was a peaceful solution based on multi-racialism. I cannot speak for the Opposition, but I should have thought that it was more likely that the Opposition

would vote for that Motion than for that which has been tabled. Indeed, it is slightly unfortunate that the Opposition themselves pay no tribute to Lord Pearce or to his conclusions.
I believe, ironically, that the views of the House of Commons, if I may put forward such an unradical viewpoint, are best expressed by the Amendment moved by the Labour Peers in another place, which
Expresses appreciation to Lord Pearce and members of the Commission on Rhodesian Opinion, approves the decision of Her Majesty's Government in accepting the Report and findings of the Commission, agrees with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the initiative for future negotiations on independence must come from the different races of Rhodesia acting in concert and that any settlement must be within the five principles and urges Her Majesty's Government to increase their efforts to make sanctions more effective…".
It seems that that more closely sums up the view of both sides of the House and I commend their Labour Lordships, at any rate in spirit, on this occasion to the House.
What are we agreed upon? I accept that the Government have drafted their Motion because they regarded it as necessary to stave off rebellion from their own Rhodesian lobby. They have not done it. They will get it, anyway. They might as well have tabled a Motion which united both sides of the House and isolated only 20 or 30 votes.
Surely, first, the House is grateful to Lord Pearce and his colleagues for a fair and thorough report. I say straight away that I had very great doubts when the Pearce Commission was set up, not for one moment because I doubted the integrity of Lord Pearce and his colleagues, but because I wondered whether they would be able to make a political evaluation of great complexity in a very large, scattered country with a very large population.
I say immediately that I was a critic of the Pearce Commission. I believe that the fears I had then have been totally confounded. I believe that this is a fair, thorough and impartial Report. I believe, excepting the views which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire expressed, which were somewhat critical of Pearce, that the majority of the House takes that view.
I believe that the way in which the Commissioners went about their work, distributing 700,000 copies of the proposals, the care which they took to see that the interpreters should be completely independent, and the fact that they took the trouble to go to every administrative district, shows that this is a report of whose accuracy we can be convinced.
Both the Government and the Opposition have also made it clear that on the Fifth Principle we mean what we say. On that I salute the Government. I, too, had some doubts about whether the Fifth Principle would be fudged. It has not been.
I remind the House that the Fifth Principle—the test of acceptability—was one which Mr. Smith himself invented in 1964 when he asked the present Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for independence on the 1961 Constitution. It was Mr. Smith's idea. It seems that it is one of the few positive, practical contributions which Mr. Smith has made to Rhodesian negotiations.
By "acceptable as a whole" Mr. Smith meant to the chiefs. The difference arose on interpretation. However, the Fifth Principle was Mr. Smith's idea.
Next, we agree also that sanctions will be kept on. There may be a slight revolt on that, but that, again, is the majority view of the House. Let no one in Salisbury be in any doubt on that score.
We also agree that, if there is to be any progress, it must be on the basis of talks between all races. I do not believe that discussions are meaningful if those representing 98 per cent, of the population are left out and are then called in at a later hour and asked whether they agree with what has been decided upon behind their backs.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary told us that one African National Council member was not quite certain—albeit on a vital element—about the blocking arrangements. If he can find one ANC politician who says that, I guarantee that I can find at least 12 Conservative divisional chairmen who do not understand the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Community, who support going into the Common Market! That is why I hoped that nonetheless the Government would have

accepted the lesson the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) put when he said, "Surely we ought to have learnt from the past".
I and my colleagues always felt that the Federation would not survive. When the Victoria Falls Conference was held with two senior Labour Ministers, in which no African, represented Southern Rhodesia, the future was decided. At no time was African consent a condition precedent to the creation of the Federation. I always believed that whatever may have been the merits politically and economically, a system which did not have the consent of the African population was doomed to failure.
Likewise, I believe that accepting, as we do, the Fifth Principle, no constitution will ever get acceptance unless the Africans, the Asians and the coloured population are brought in for the initial negotiations. Surely the Government could have brought that into their Motion. The Secretary of State was right—he was slightly barracked on this—in that the African rejection applies as much to a mistrust of Mr. Smith as to the terms themselves.
When the Chinamanos and Todds were restricted, and the Pearce Commissioners could not find out the reason, they had to conclude that it was to restrict their political activities. Lord Pearce is not an African extremist. This was his view in the report. People were being moved from certain areas which were being cleared for a forestation purposes—the Secretary of State denied it when I asked him and then later wrote and confirmed that it was going on even during the course of acceptability. When one considers all these things, including the way in which Mr. Smith obtained the Declaration of Emergency from the Governor on the basis that he was not going to do a UDI, and then did it within a few hours, can it be a cause of surprise that the Africans mistrusted the man they were asked to agree should take charge of their destinies in an independent Rhodesia?
The Government could not merely say, "We would like all races to get together." They go one stage further and say that it is essential if there is to be a lasting solution that all races must get together.
When the Pearce Report came out I was in Lusaka, which I suppose is the independent African country which has suffered more from UDI than has any other African country. Certainly it has been more critical, often with justification, of this country and its successive Governments than has any other country over the Rhodesia issue. There was not only a feeling of relief when the Pearce Report came out; the automatic reaction of their Government was, "They have done a Monckton". What they meant by that is that this country and the Government had commissioned somebody of total impartiality, of independent mind, to produce an independent honest report which reflected the views currently prevailing, and had agreed to abide by its decision.
I hope that the Minister for Overseas Development found when he went to Nigeria that this country's stock in independent Africa arising from the Pearce Report is very high indeed. The Government are responsible for that situation and they are fully entitled to the credit. I do not want to see that credit now dissipated. There are those who say that sanctions have not worked. It is perfectly true that sanctions have not brought about a multi-racial society in Rhodesia. However, sanctions have brought Mr. Smith to the negotiating table on three different occasions. It will be remembered that he was the man who in November, 1965, did a UDI because there was nothing further to discuss. In Mr. Smith's speech reported in The Times today he says that Rhodesia's economic development may have to be slowed down to cope with the balance of payments problems caused by sanctions.
There is no doubt that sanctions have had an effect. If the mutterings of the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) go further and amount to an intervention I shall be delighted to give way.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I was not muttering. I have heard that sort of statement in countries which were not subject to sanctions.

Mr. Thorpe: I do not know which countries the hon. Member for Torquay has in mind. He was wrong when he said he was not muttering. He was muttering. Perhaps he does so without notic-

ing it. If he says there are countries which in theory keep sanctions and in practice break them, I will agree. I am coming to that in a moment.

Sir F. Barnett: Sir F. Barnett rose—

Mr. Thorpe: I have already shown that the exercise was not worth the effort. I accept that this country has tried honourably to make sanctions work and for that I give this Government credit. I believe that this Government have credit in Africa and other countries concerned. My only regret is that they were a bit weak-kneed—in fact, there were no knees at all—when it came to the United States and chrome. If strenuous representations had been made to the White House at that stage, as they were made when America was wondering whether she would withdraw her Consul General from Salisbury and then did, the lifting of sanctions on chrome would not have gone through. On that I am absolutely certain.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Is it not a fact that the American Executive gave their support to the recent Magee Amendment in the Senate designed to observe sanctions and despite that the Amendment was defeated by four votes?

Mr. Thorpe: The Administration, if I am correct, at the last moment made it known in a rather half-hearted way that they would prefer that Amendment to go through rather than be defeated. So the technical answer is "Yes", but what is important is the timing and the vigour with which that political initiative was taken. Her Majesty's Government should clearly have approached the Americans at an early stage before there was any question of an Amendment and before the chrome sanctions were lifted.
This country, having adhered to the Fifth Principle and to sanctions, is entilled to protest to countries such as West Germany, France, Yugoslavia and Japan who are breaking sanctions. We are entitled to say to the OAU and other countries that it is no good crying and screaming at us to do more. We are entitled to say, "We are carrying out sanctions. What are you going to do to get other countries to give up breaking sanctions?"
I should like to see British business men going through black Africa and saying, "We are seeking to sell British


cars and goods. We are a country that is not in breach of sanctions. You are buying from the Japanese, the French and the Germans and others who are." We are entitled to say that this country is not prepared for ever to keep on sanctions if other countries are in breach. We should bring them to realise the reality of the situation.
We are in a position of strength. This country can express its determination, whatever mistakes have been made in the past, and heaven alone knows there have been many in Rhodesia, for the fact remains that at the moment we have a clean slate; we have had an impartial inquiry, which we have accepted. We are making sanctions as effective as we can from this country.
Finally, it is said that the choice is between evolution and revolution. That is wholly correct. The only way in which the Europeans can prevent that revolution is by rapid evolution. The choice lies with them. Perhaps the most dramatic statistic coming out of Salisbury was one which they produced in 1970. The European population was 204,000 and the number of Africans in domestic service was 104,000, averaging four servants per house. There lies the economic equation of those who wish to maintain the status quo and why they wish to maintain it.
We are not yet in the position of South Africa, where Mr. Vorster's storm troops are to be found pulling people by the hair out of the Cathedral where they have gone to take sanctuary by the altar. We may have greater economic power in South Africa than we have in Rhodesia. We have not reached that position yet.
However, there is no doubt that in both those countries, unless there is a recognition that people cannot be denied political rights, that they have a chance to be treated as people who should be brought forward in partnership, there will be in Southern Africa one of the bloodiest revolutions the world has ever seen. I want to see it prevented, not by appeasing the present racialist régime, not by holding out false hopes that at the end of three months there will suddenly be a change of heart by Mr. Smith, but by solid economic pressure. That is the only argument which is understood and will prevail.
Having just come back from South Africa, I believe that one hopeful aspect of the society there is that there are still Europeans of good will and there are still Africans of good will who are not embittered. Why Africans should not be embittered I know not. If I lived under those conditions, I do not think that I should have the magnanimity which many of them are showing today.
There is still time for the races to come together. If they will not listen to reason, they must heed economic pressures which we must galvanise the world to make more effective. Sanctions cannot be 100 per cent. effective, but they can and already have had an effect. That is why I say to the Government, perhaps for the first time in any Rhodesian debate, that I believe they have acted properly regarding both Pearce and sanctions. They have an enormous fund of good will throughout independent Africa. This is the moment when they must cash that cheque.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had four speeches in nearly two hours. I repeat my plea for shorter speeches.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: We have listened to a most thoughtful speech by the Leader of the Liberal Party. The right hon. Gentleman has focused our attention on the almost intractible problems of Southern Africa.
It is almost presumptuous of me to address the House this evening on the subject of Rhodesia and Southern Africa as I have never set foot in Rhodesia. However, I had the experience, during the 26th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, of occupying the United Kingdom's seat on 49 successive occasions during debates on Southern Africa. I was in the Security Council when the British Permanent Representative first announced the terms of the settlement at the United Nations. I was the first United Kingdom representative to state that a settlement has been reached in Salisbury between Mr. Smith and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
My experience at the United Nations has given me some thoughts which I think are worth sharing with the House.


I think that tonight we should concentrate on the future rather than the past. Lord Pearce has reported, and I accept his verdict. I hope that those at the United Nations and elsewhere—I commend the remarks of the Leader of the Liberal Party in this respect—who were so active in their criticisms of the Commissioners and of Lord Pearce will now realise the total integrity of the noble Lord and his colleagues. I think that will add tremendously to the importance of the report.
I should like to join my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, (Mr. Hastings) in his tribute to my right hon. Friend. I sat through 10 days at the United Nations when we were waiting for news to come out of Salisbury. No one was more thankful than I when the agreed proposals were brought forward. However, I should be the first to admit, having studied those proposals in detail and been in the Security Council at the time they were explained, that they were extremely complex and in some respects incomprehensible. Nevertheless, as a package—one has to regard those proposals as a package—they were reasonable in the circumstances surrounding the negotiations which took place at that time. Unfortunately, my experience in New York at the United Nations made it clear to me that emotion rather than economic realism motivated much of the African thinking on this type of settlement.
Another matter which emerged was that the future of Rhodesia cannot be divorced from the future of all the other States of Southern Africa which surround that country Unfortunately, the situation in all the other countries is disturbing. For various reasons, it is extremely alarming. However, when we realise that in this world racialism is the most emotive factor with which we have to deal, it gives one a comprehension of the difficulties with which anybody trying to move forward from the present situation is faced.
My right hon. Friend addressed the 26th General Assembly on 29th September. In a shortish passage concerning affairs in Southern Africa, he stressed the need for dialogue. That need, which has hardly been mentioned today, still exists. I believe there is room for dialogue in various ways in all those States. No one

can see exactly how that dialogue could or should develop, but my conversations in the corridors led me to suppose that dialogue was perfectly possible.
The tip—indeed, the whole—of Southern Africa is an area of the world of extreme strategic importance. If Southern Africa were controlled by enemies of the Western powers, the oil lifeline, as I describe it, from the Middle East to the Western powers—not particularly to the United Kingdom—would be threatened. Therefore, we must consider outside influences which may have been affecting the thinking of the Africans and, indeed, the thinking in Rhodesia when the Pearce Commission was there.
It is most unfortunate, but in my view we can expect Afro-Asian pressures, strongly supported by the Soviet Union and the Communist bloc, to build up against us at the United Nations. In other words, it is unrealistic to think that the status quo will prevail for a matter of months or years. The Opposition Amendment calling for an extension and tightening up of sanctions is indicative of what will be called for from, and possibly on, other countries in Southern Africa in the relatively near future.
I am glad that tribute has been paid to this country—it certainly requires it—concerning the keeping of sanctions.. We have an exemplary record, which is accepted by the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations.
On 29thMay, really only a few days ago, an important conference was held on affairs in Southern Africa under the auspices of the South-West Africa People's Organisation. Forty nations were present at that conference. There was a unanimous call from that conference that the OAU should be asked to boycott the multi-national companies operating in South-West Africa; and there was a further call, I regret, that the United Kingdom should be removed from the Security Council. I mention these matters because we should have regard to them.
I hate quoting my own speeches, but as hon Members on both sides do not often pick up reports from the United Nations I should like to mention one short intervention—

Mr. Robert Hughes: I was present in Brussels at the conference on South-West


Africa. I do not recall any resolution being passed calling for Britain to be removed from the Security Council. Will the hon. Gentleman quote the document or let me see it so that I may be able to say whether it is authoritative or not?

Mr. Temple: I was relying on a Press report in the Financial Times headed "Brussels, May 29.", which states:
Britain should be removed from the Security Council for refusing to recognise the court's ruling".
It referred to an advisory opinion of the International Court of the Hague.
On 20th December last, speaking in the General Assembly on the subject of the financing of freedom fighters through the agencies, I said:
…my delegation is increasingly concerned by the tendency of the specialised agencies to become involved in political matters at the expense and to the detriment of their legitimate activities".
I give only those examples of what I call the shape of things to come, and that is why I emphasise that the status quo will not persist. We must not delude ourselves by thinking that things will carry on as before.
The rejection by the African majority of the settlement proposals is, and should be seen as, a watershed. I am not particularly optimistic about a change of heart on the part of the Smith Government. We should make it clear in international circles that we are not, and have not been for 50 years, the administering Power in Rhodesia. We have certain residual powers. Unless we make this abundantly clear, we shall be hounded in the international forums for a very long time to come.
I have no solution to offer; I wish I had. The way ahead is extraordinarily difficult. But I revert to my right hon. Friend's advice to the General Assembly on 29th September for an increase in dialogue. That was wise and sensible advice. Nothing is simple in these matters. Further, being in a position of responsibility without the power, the only thing for the United Kingdom to do is to seek to disengage as quickly as we reasonably can from a situation which is becoming increasingly impossible.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: It is my wish to meet

your request, Mr. Speaker, to hon. Members to keep their speeches as short as possible. Therefore, I am sure that the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) will understand if I do not comment on his speech but concentrate on what the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary's hopes were for a compromise settlement because, he said, there would otherwise be a polarisation of the races and the prospect of a conflict. In my opinion, a compromise settlement would have hastened the conflict and made sure that only by violent means could the Africans obtain their legitimate rights. The Pearce Commission has shown the strength of African feeling against white minority rule. There is, clearly, a great gulf of distrust between the communities.
The Africans, aware of the real and desperate problems facing Rhodesia, have no confidence in Mr. Smith or in his Rhodesian Front Party. They are not prepared to see a settlement reached between the British Government and the Smith Administration. So we have now to resolve that there can be no settlement of the Rhodesian problem without the effective co-operation of the Africans. They have asked for the holding of a constitutional conference, which is a very reasonable request. In my opinion, we should seek no further talks with Mr. Smith except on the understanding that the Africans' request is met.
Lord Pearce, in his report, says that he is satisfied that the terms of the Anglo-Rhodesian settlement were adequately understood by the great majority of those who gave him their opinions. Mr. Smith disagrees. He places no trust in a judge of the High Court and a group of distinguished ex-colonial civil servants, all of whom have greater knowledge and experience of African affairs than most of the leaders of the Rhodesian Front Party. For example, the so-called "President" of Rhodesia, Mr. Dupont, was a solicitor in my home town and arrived in Rhodesia after I had been there on an official visit in 1947.
One of this country's most skilled politicians and diplomats, Lord Harlech, was singled out for bitter attack. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary himself does not escape, for in a radio interview Mr. Smith said that it had passed through


his mind that the British Government had planned a "No" answer to the test of acceptability of the terms of the settlement with Rhodesia. I recall Mr. Smith's treatment of a true Rhodesian who remained loyal to the Crown—the ex-Governor, Sir Humphrey Gibbs. The treatment of him by Mr. Smith was abominable. I remember, with the former Lord Chancellor, meeting Mr. Smith on several occasions. I can only say as a result of my dealings with him that I long ago made up my mind that it was impossible to conduct negotiations with him.
Over the past 20 years I have had dealings with every Rhodesian Prime Minister. All of them, with the exception of Mr. Smith, have approached their problems with varying degrees of good will towards partnership and genuine development. They were not progressive enough for me, but their aims were on the right lines. Contrast this with what Mr. Smith and his Rhodesian Front Party have done since they have had power. Since 1962 they have placed an emphasis on racial separation and differences. Competent African leaders like Joshua Nkomo and the Reverend Sithole have been detained and their political organisations banned. They have been denied freedom of speech and of the Press.
The late Dr. Elisha Mutasa, a personal friend of mine, and a very gentle, mild man, a genuine reformer, was convicted because he made a speech in which he said that some Africans were selling themselves for 20 pieces of silver. He also said that the chief of the Tangwena tribe was elected by the people, unlike some who had been appointed by the Government.
Every means has been employed to suppress African feelings. Under the Land Tenure Act, the Tangwena tribe were to be moved. Their case against being moved was taken to the High Court, and they won it. But the Government, by an Order in Council, upset that decision. Other communities are threatened. Action might have been taken had it not been for the talks initiated last November. But we must be alert because there is no guarantee that the missions and other people who do much to help the African will not suffer the same fate as the Tangwena tribe.
The Land Tenure Act is pernicious. It divides the country into racial areas: one portion of 45 million acres for 240,000 Europeans, and the other portion of 45 million acres for over 5 million Africans. The main industrial and urban areas are situated in the European part of the country. About 10 times as much is spent on European education as is spent on African education. Only 2 per cent. of the gross national product is made available for African education. The reduced contributions are forcing the control of primary education out of the hands of the missionary schools into what are called African councils. This means Government-controlled education to make sure that the kind of education which the African gets is subservient to the ruling clique in power.
Housing and social services as we know them are practically non-existent in Rhodesia. As we heard today, unemployment is growing, and it is not due to sanctions alone. The African population is increasing at such a rate that work cannot be found for all of them.
The Africans have shown that they want a peaceful solution to their problems. At the Lusaka conference in 1969 they said
We would prefer to negotiate rather than destroy, to talk rather than kill.
The African National Council, led by Bishop Muzorewa, was calling for this constitutional conference, to which I have referred. We should put our full weight behind this very reasonable request. Not only would this encourage the Africans, but it would also give encouragement to the liberal elements among the Europeans in Rhodesia. There are still many of them.
The student unrest in South Africa and the bold statements by leading South African citizens can have their repercussions in Rhodesia. We cannot afford to lose our credibility with the Africans. The agreement last November with the Foreign Secretary cannot be implemented and we should say so. On the other hand, we cannot sit back and do nothing. I have never ruled out the use of force in any circumstances. The Government should now be planning with our Commonwealth partners facilities for the movement of British troops in case of need.
Above all, the application of economic sanctions must continue. Sanctions have been responsible for bringing the Rhodesian Front Party to the negotiating table. The Rhodesian Europeans are feeling the effects of isolation in the world and their inability to secure the political and economic benefits of their rebellion. The railways and the airways are badly run down because of the shortage of foreign exchange. Sanction-evading operations have resulted in reduced profits and increased import prices. The national debt has risen over 70 per cent, and trade balances which were favourable have now run into a deficit.
The Foreign Secretary has quite rightly referred to Britain's part in supporting the United Nation's policy and we all have a right to be proud of that. But we should not forget that the majority of the members of the United Nations are doing the same. The main sanctions breakers are certain Western European countries and Japan. I intended to say some of the things that were said by the Leader of the Liberal Party. British businessmen should be taking more action to ensure that it is known that some of the African countries are giving business and orders to the sanctions breakers and not to those who are abiding by the sanctions policy: namely, British businessmen.
The African nations are now seeing the wisdom of applying economic sanctions more effectively. I have always pleaded with the African leaders to do so. It could be possible for the United Nations, with stronger machinery, to provide ways and means whereby cargoes from Rhodesia could be confiscated either en route or at their destination. We must remember that many African countries are getting to the position where trade is vital, as in the case of all the trading nations of the world. Nigeria is the richest and most populous country in Africa, and it is no longer indifferent to what is happening in Rhodesia. We must ensure that we do not risk British investment in Nigeria, which is far greater than investment in Rhodesia.
We must all have heartfelt sympathy for the unfortunate incident at Wankie Colliery. In this hour of tribulation black and white suffered alike. If men must die together, can they not live together in mutual trust and regard?

There is now in Rhodesia a coherent black opposition which is disciplined, moderate and non-violent. The African National Council, backed by ZAPU and ZANU, is calling for a dialogue, and if the Rhodesian Europeans reject that call there could be violence, for which the reactionary elements in Rhodesia would be responsible.
The British Government and the British people cannot escape their responsibilities. Fifty years ago Winston Churchill said that it would be an ill day for the native races in Rhodesia if they were abandoned to the sea of self-interest of a small white population. We must resolve that it does not happen. We must take effective steps to see that the rebellion in Rhodesia is crushed.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. John Hunt: I will begin by echoing the regrets which have already been expressed at the apparent intention of the Opposition to divide the House at the end of the debate. I have always sought to maintain and encourage a bipartisan approach to the problems of Rhodesia. I bitterly regret, therefore, the tabling of the Opposition Amendment, which in present circumstances can only been seen as unnecessary and unhelpful.
It is a political truism that after the work of the Pearce Commission things can never be the same again in Rhodesia. The astonishing upsurge of African opinion which coincided with the arrival of Lord Pearce in Salisbury clearly took many people, including the Rhodesian Front, very much by surprise. In my view, and this is largely borne out by Lord Pearce's report, the upsurge was to a great extent a reflection of the simmering sense of grievance and resentment that has been bottled up amongst Africans in Rhodesia since UDI. One group of Commissioners reported in paragraph 396:
The grass roots expression of distrust and suspicion of the present Government was overwhelming.
It also seemed universal to them in the urban areas, and, perhaps more surprisingly, in the rural areas as well.
I do not think it is always appreciated that the arrival of the Pearce Commission in Rhodesia provided Africans there with their first opportunity of direct personal contact with Britain for more than six


years. Their remarkable and generally spontaneous outburst and turnout was a touching and telling reminder to us of the extent to which these people still look to Britain. It dramatically underlined the continuing moral and, indeed, legal responsibility which we have in this country for them and their future.
I share the widespread regret on this side of the House that the terms which were so patiently and skilfully negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary proved in the event to be unacceptable to African opinion in Rhodesia. We know this must be a tremendous personal disappointment to him after all his strenuous efforts. I share his view that the settlement terms offered a prospect of steady and substantial improvement in the economic and political status of the Africans. But that is history. The terms have now been rejected and, as a previous speaker has said, we must now look to the future.
I do not agree with a great deal that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) said, but on one point I saw eye to eye with him. That was when he urged a continuing dialogue between this country and the Rhodesian Government. It is important that we, and my right hon. Friend in particular, should not be unduly deterred by the setback we have suffered, that we should continue wherever possible to give Mr. Smith the benefit of our advice, and, in particular, the wide experience of my right hon. Friend in all these complex matters. Indeed, I think my right hon. Friend is one of the few Englishmen to whom Mr. Smith will still listen.
In the meantime, I believe the Government are absolutely right to urge, as they do in the Motion, that there should now be a period for calm and quiet reflection, which I think is much more likely to yield constructive results than the kind of precipitate action urged in the Opposition's Amendment. In the intervening, period, as my right hon. Friend has stressed, there must be a maintenance of the status quo. I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue steadfastly to resist the misguided wooings of those who are seeking to persuade him to lift existing sanctions. If he had listened to those same people two or three years ago, we

should never have succeeded in getting Mr. Smith to the negotiating table at all.
Of course there is some evasion—indeed, on a substantial scale. Of course the Rhodesians have managed to diversify their economy, and in that way to minimise the effect of sanctions. But, equally, there is no doubt that a shortage of foreign exchange, the lack of capital investment, will and must have a cumulative effect, and that so long as Rhodesians are deprived of that degree of international acceptability and respectability for which they yearn there will be present in Rhodesia the continuous and, I believe, growing desire to find a solution to the problem.
At some point, perhaps in two or three years' time, talks between our two countries will have to be resumed. I share the hope which has already been expressed in this debate that at that stage it will be possible for men of the calibre of Bishop Muzorewa to be brought into the consultations. Indeed, we hope that a constructive dialogue between black and white in Rhodesia will start long before that.
One message which comes loud and clear from every page of the Pearce Commission Report is of the tragic gulf of ignorance and incomprehension between the two races in Rhodesia. A further vivid illustration of the gulf was provided in a series of articles in the Sunday Telegraph a few weeks ago by Mr. J. W. M. Thompson, a balanced and responsible journalist. He wrote of the whites in Rhodesia having
contrived to live their lives at a soothing distance from the black millions. It is not that they do not see them. This they constantly do, at work, in their leisure, in the streets, and above all in the shape of domestic servants in their own homes. They simply inhabit a different world which happens to exist within the same country as the black man's world.
To me that is a terrible indictment of the life which has been lived in Rhodesia up to now.
It may be that events in recent months, startling and traumatic as they must have been for many in Rhodesia, will in retrospect be seen as a turning point in the history of that country. From now on, established attitudes on both sides will have to change. The white minority will have to accept eventually that there will be greater African involvement in the life


of their country, and that it is inevitable and long overdue. At the same time, the Africans will have to realise that for many years to come the European will play an important and prominent rôl e within Rhodesia.
Many of us feared that the return of Lord Pearce to this country would coincide with a wave of repression against those Africans who had campaigned against the settlement, that we might see the arrest and detention of Bishop Muzorewa. The fact that this has not so far happened is a glimmer of encouragement. It indicates, perhaps, that the Rhodesians are still to some extent sensitive to world opinion. It may, I hope, also reflect a willingness on the part of the Rhodesian authorities to have a time for reflection, as we are having, and to consider their next steps with care and restraint. We should like to think that even at this late stage they will turn back from the paths of segregation and discrimination, that they will be prepared to amend or abolish in particular the hated Land Tenure Act.
I always felt that a key part of the settlement terms negotiated by my right hon. Friend was the proposal for the provision of £50 million for 10 years from this country for the education and training of Africans in Rhodesia, to be matched by a similar amount from the Rhodesian Government. I welcomed that, because it has always seemed to me that it was unfair to expect the small white minority in Rhodesia to carry the whole burden of educating the much larger African population. Unhappily, this part of the settlement, like the rest, will now have to stand in abeyance, but I wonder whether in the meantime we could find a way of providing facilities in this country for the education and training of Rhodesian Africans. That would seem to me a practical way of alleviating the appalling hardship, the chronic unemployment, particularly among the school leavers in Rhodesia.
One of my constituents who was a secondary school teacher in Rhodesia tells me that he knows of a young man with good O-level science qualifications who wants to be a motor mechanic. There is no provision for such training for Africans in Rhodesia, although, paradoxically, there is nothing to stop them,

once trained, from obtaining such a job. That is the sort of case which we should try to help.
I understand that shortly after UDI there was a proposal to set up a Commonwealth special assistance programme for Rhodesian Africans. It seems that nothing has come of that. Could my right hon. Friend give earnest consideration to the possibility of our taking an initiative in the matter and providing some help for those who are suffering most in Rhodesia?
Although we are, naturally, disappointed by the rejection of the settlement terms, I do not believe that the outlook for Rhodesia is wholly bleak. What is important now is that we in this House and in this country should not, for reasons of lack of interest or of impatience, turn our backs on a country which, for all its faults and problems, still has strong links with, and loyalties to, Britain among both its black and white populations. Rhodesia is a country whose destiny is inextricably linked to ours. For those reasons, I shall have no hesitation in supporting the Motion.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Foley: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt), because we are aware of the profound interest he has shown over the years in reconciling races in this country and in other parts of the world, and because of the courageous stand he has taken within his own party on the issue of sanctions.
The debate must be seen in the context of the Government's policies in Africa as a whole. These are matters of the widest importance in terms of our relations with the United Nations, with other Commonwealth countries and with our European partners. They are matters of responsibility, of morality and of British interests. That is why I say that the Government's policies in Africa have been characterised in the past two years by a series of miscalculations designed to sow the seeds of mistrust of the Government's motivations in many African leaders.
I believe that it was within a month of their coming into office that probably the Government's first foreign policy decision was taken. This was the decision to sell arms to South Africa. Probably


the first communication from the Government to other Commonwealth Governments was that announcement. It was shortly afterwards followed by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference in Singapore, and despite all the briefings it seemed clear that the aim there was in effect to elevate the threat of Communism in the Indian Ocean as justification for the decision to sell arms to South Africa. This again is not a policy designed to encourage the African heads of State to believe in Britain's honest intentions to deal with the difficult problems of race in Southern Africa.
We were told of the decision to sell arms to South Africa, but when the White Paper emerged, it was the promise of some helicopters and nothing else. What have we got out of it? We have earned for ourselves a reputation of being on the side of white supremacy and of giving comfort to a régime in South Africa who were not really interested in getting arms from us, because they can get them from other sources, but wanted the British Government's agreement to sell arms as a cloak of support and respectability.
It is in that broader context that we look at the talks with Mr. Smith. At the time of the agreement, the Opposition divided the House. We thought that it was a bad agreement. We voted against the settlement terms because too much was left to the good faith of Mr. Smith. In the event, the Pearce Commission has presented in clear terms the apprehensions and realities of Africans in Rhodesia. They mistrust him, they were not consulted or involved in the negotiations. That is part of the reason why they said, "No".
It is true that we must realise that we are in a new situation. I, too, had apprehensions about the Pearce Commission. I felt that it should include people from other Commonwealth countries. I was anxious that these would merely be a whitewash exercise. One had had reports from friends that, prior even to the visit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, basically the work had been done, that he was just going there to dot the "is and cross the "it"s of an arrangement already worked out. It was against that background that I was fortunate enough to

visit Rhodesia during the time of the Commission's investigations, in company with the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Nigel Fisher). We were able to observe for fully six days the work of the Commission, both in Salisbury and in a tribal trust area, and to see for ourselves the quality and competency of Lord Pearce and his immediate staff and of the commissioners in the field.
We were wrong. I was wrong. I had underestimated the integrity, quality and capacity of the Commission to do its work. I came away after those six days fully satisfied with its methods of work and its dedication to the job. I think that Mr. Smith and the British Government were wrong. They hoped that it would be a quick job, that it would be done easily, and that the answer would be to endorse the agreement.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) instanced the mind of Mr. Smith by quoting from his own documents as to what he thought a test of acceptability would be and what would turn out. Lord Pearce and his Commission proved themselves to be people of considerable vision, skill and ability. They were right to reject the proposal that the chiefs would speak for the rural Africans and that no one else was needed. They were right to say that they would not work entirely through the district commissioners, who are the instruments of Mr. Smith's policy and clearly let him down badly in terms of their ultimate advice.
We must now look at where we are and where we go from here. I want to echo things already said about sanctions. Before my more recent visit, I was last in Salisbury in 1968 on another ill-fated mission of negotiation. I looked at the shops then, as I did on this occasion. There is clear evidence of goods from West Germany, France and Japan, and what has been said is right—that we are probably the only honest country in terms of our dealings in this matter.
When I look at the decision of the United States on chrome imports, I say frankly to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary that I find it an incredible coincidence that, on the second day he was in Salisbury talking to Mr. Smith, the United States made its decision on


chrome. I find it incredible, whether it was a coincidence or not. Equally, I find it incredible that there has been no condemnation of United States policy by the British Government.
The Labour Government were approached by the chrome lobby pleading their case, but we said, "No". We had our difficulties at the time in implementing the United Nations Resolution on consulates. We told the United States and Portugal and they both closed their consulates. I find the absence of a sense of urgency or indignation on the part of the Government on the chrome issue a little strange if one parallels it with the desire and anxiety to be level-headed.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman is not aiming at the right target. Nor would we have been had we protested to the American Government. They tried to enforce the sanction, but were overruled by Congress.

Mr. Foley: One has read that, but also one has read about the extent to which the President himself did not intervene when he could have done. One has talked to Senators and Members of the House of Representatives anxious to reverse the decision. One knows the full facts of the story, just as I hope the right hon. Gentleman is acquainted with the realities of the chrome situation in the United States and with the fact that this decision is a dirty deal in a Presidential election year and a pay-off to the big boys financing the campaign.
It is in this context that one expects the British Government to make their minds known, just as one expects them to make their minds known to the two countries who have thwarted successive British Governments in their attempts to bring the illegal régime to an end—South Africa and Portugal. One should stand up to these two countries and say to them, "You are in breach of sanctions. What you are doing is a hostile act to Britain." The impression that is now current, however—and there may well be truth in it—is that, in making this difficult equation of foreign policy, the Government are coming down on the side of the white racialists, and that is something inimical to the rest of black Africa. This is the only conclusion that many Africans have reached in terms of our work in this matter.
When I talk about urging the maintenance of sanctions, it is with a view to stating publicly who are in breach of sanctions. I think that there is nothing more one can do about the structure. It is a question of will and how strongly we feel about those who break sanctions and with whom we otherwise have excellent relations. It is a question whether we tell them privately, and, if that fails, publicly, that they are in effect pursuing policies which do not conform to what we believe should happen in the normal relations between friendly countries.
Equally, I believe that we must, in the light of the overwhelming "No" vote, make sure that no further talks can take place without the presence of African leaders. The right hon. Gentleman talks of a period of quiet reflection. The hon. Member for Bromley talks about a period of calm. Let them look at Southern Africa and tell me where there is calm, where there are periods of quiet reflection. Do they see it in Johannesburg, in Namibia, in Rhodesia, in Angola or in Mozambique? Do they not realise that in Rhodesia Africans outnumbered Europeans by 20 to 1, and that the whole system of society there is organised to preserve and protect the Europeans in terms of their privileges and to deny the Africans access to the cash economy, to keep them in the rural areas, to deprive them of education and of health facilities, and even of their human dignity? Can we talk about periods of calm and quiet in the context of this situation? Are we talking about Africa or are we talking about my constituency of West Bromwich or some place in the Scottish Highlands?
Africa is an immense continent, with problems of poverty and disease, of nations artificially created and people denied fundamental rights. People would certainly welcome an evolutionary move for change but believe that in the absence of any possibility of that there must inevitably be a move towards revolution. This Government, as with previous Governments, have to make sure that their relationships are based on trust and mutual respect. The question is on which side shall we be in the future, the White racialists in South Africa or the ultimate African majority? It is for these reasons that tonight we censure the Government, because of their persistent failure to read Africa as it really is.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) spoke of arms for South Africa. He was a member of the previous Administration with some responsibility for the Royal Navy, and it was that Administration which handed over to the South African Navy increased responsibility for the protection of the Cape route. I wish that there could be less humbug in these discussions.
The hon. Gentleman spoke slightingly of the United States because of the chrome purchases when the reason why many Americans wanted to purchase chrome and other materials from Rhodesia was that they preferred buying them from Rhodesia to buying them from Communist countries or buying Rhodesian chrome through Communist countries. He asked whether there was a country in South-East Africa which is calm at the moment. The answer to that, from my recent observations, is that Rhodesia is calm.

Sir George Sinclair: Would my hon. Friend not agree that America allowed the breaking of the chrome sanctions at the very time when she was selling off massive sections of her stockpile of chome?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: That may be so but I do not wish to enter into criticism of the Americans at this time.
To answer the concluding rhetorical question of the hon. Member for West Bromwich: "Where do we stand; are we on the side of the racists or on the side of peaceful evolution?". I would assure him at once that I am on the side of the latter.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) complained that the Government Motion did not approve the Pearce Report. The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) pointed out that the Opposition Amendment did not approve the report either. For my part I will be frank and say that I would rather reject the report. In Rhodesia the other day people made different complaints about it. Some were contradictory. Some said that there should not have been a judge to preside over the Commission because this was a political task. Others complained that the approach was not sufficiently judicial.

I do not accept that. The more I read this race report the more unscientific I find it. A sample survey was thought of and abandoned and I find the report at times contradictory and confused.
This is not altogether the fault of the Commission. Its remit was to ascertain directly from all sections of the population of Rhodesia whether these proposals were acceptable. I am inclined to agree with the ANC when it said that no genuine and impartial distinction of opinion was possible in Rhodesia by any such Commission if only because of the character of the country and the different levels of development. The Batonka in the Zambesi Valley when asked their opinion were not aware that there was any dispute between the Rhodesians and the British. The Commissioners in Matabeleland North excluding Bulawayo and in Victoria Province including the Buhera district of Matabeleland said that they were quite unable to reach a conclusion. I only wish that we could have these Commissioners' reports in full but my right hon. Friend told me that this was not appropriate. In the conditions of Rhodesian life I think that African opinion as a whole must have found it difficult to believe that the Queen's Government could appear—it is not the case but I feel this is the way it must have appeared to most Africans—to have so little confidence in the terms agreed.
These terms were good terms. I would like to congratulate and commiserate with my right hon. Friend. The agreement that he reached with Mr. Ian Smith was something more than most of us expected could have been got out of Mr. Ian Smith. In Salisbury recently I found that conversation did not go particularly easily with Mr. Smith. I found him very disappointed. There is one fact worth mentioning about political life in Rhodesia and that is that the Rhodesian Front—and no doubt we shall see this in the Rhodesian Front congress in September—is one thing but the Rhodesian Front Government is something quite different.
On the whole Mr. Ian Smith and his cabinet colleagues have stood for moderation and have resisted moves towards apartheid. Even the Republican Constitution which we hoped would have been replaced by this new Constitution is


not an apartheid constitution. It aims at parity not separation. It aims at bringing the two races, of course in unequal representation, together in the same Parliament. Mr. Smith decided to part company with Mr. Harper and Lord Graham. My right hon. Friend said that Rhodesia is not like South Africa. While I was there Mr. McLean, a Minister, made a speech, which was widely publicised, attacking the "hypocrisy" of those European employers who would not employ Africans for jobs which they could do at the wages they ought to get. Also, there was a symposium on civics at the Ranche House College which included both Bishop Muzorewa and, believe it or not, Mr. P. K. van der Byl. Mr. Smith as my right hon. Friend pointed out, has not resiled from the agreement which he made.
Nevertheless, every fiasco in Anglo-Rhodesian dealings does tend to move the political centre of the White Rhodesians further to the right, if that is the proper word. The people I found most saddened by the result of the Pearce Commission were those who are loosely called White Liberals. What Sir Humphrey Gibbs said in the short memorandum included in the Report, says nearly everything that needs to be said. I referred to Ranche House College. Mr. Ken Mewe, the Methodist principal there who is considered extremely subversive by some members of the Rhodesian Front—he belongs to PARD, People Against Racial Discrimination—wrote an article in the Rhodesian Herald urging what we urge in our Amendment. We urge that regardless of the failure of the fifth principle, the terms be implemented by the two Governments. Among Africans I was aware of the feeling "Yes, perhaps the same mistake has been made as was made in 1961."
Sir Robert Tredgold, among others, pointed out that under the justiciable Declaration of Rights such Measures as the Property Owners (Protection) Bill would be ruled out. I thought an African in Bulawayo who wrote to the African Times put it rather well when he asked:
Which is better, a car that moves or one that stands still?
The ANC campaign was against the terms, yes, but it was much more against the Rhodesian Front.
I found amongst Africans a disturbing, almost pathetic, confidence that Her Majesty's Government have the power and the will to revise the proposals to make them more acceptable to them. I was surprised to find African leaders professing to think that, despite the failure of sanctions, Britain can impose her will on a country where self-government has existed since 1923 but has never been administered from the United Kingdom.
I regret to say this, but within the ANC there are those who wanted this compromise proposal to fail, because its rejection could mean that all roads will be closed for African nationalism other than that of revolution.
I think that the Commission underestimated the intimidation, and the effect of intimidation, which is an African reality. It is a reality here. Our experience in Northern Ireland should have given us a clearer understanding of what intimidation can mean. Despite the reports put out by the Rhodesian Government, the ANC denied that it had indulged in any intimidation, but certainly its cause profited by intimidation, and the normal political activity that was insisted upon was a doubtful blessing. Normal political activity, alas, in Rhodesia has often proved rather short-lived, leading to violence and then to repression. Normal political activity, as we have seen in the past in Rhodesia, has too often been the law of the bicycle and the petrol bomb.
Some people have said that even the choice of the title "ANC" filled Africans with fear. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) thinks that is funny, but we are here safe from the evils which simple Africans, and even not so simple Africans, fear. The term "ANC" harked back to the African National Congress which Mr. Garfield Todd as version and the intimidation of Africans, version and the intimidation of Africans, just as did Sir Edgar Whitehead in 1959.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: What in fact was said was in the document produced by the Smith Government for the Pearce Commission, where it was speculated that the reason why the title "ANC" had been chosen was to give it this kind of aura. But no evidence was produced. I have never met an African anywhere in Rhodesia who took that attitude about the title.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: It is a reasonable supposition that these initials were deliberately chosen.
The report brings out how different sections of the community were put in fear. It speaks of traders and shopkeepers, men of intelligence and with a stake in the peaceful future of Rhodesia. I met prosperous, cultured, politically conscious Africans who told of the terror to which they had been subjected. It was not just that their cars had been attacked. Their wives had been rung up in the middle of the night in the most threatening way. Mr. Gondo, an M.P., was assaulted. Mr. P. M. Mkudu, a former M.P., lost his store and hotel. Mr. Ronnie Sadomba, M.P., left the Centre Party, which stood for accepting the terms; he recanted. Mr. Sadomba said in a speech at Hartley:
Some people are already starting the thuggery business of the early 1960s.
These are VIPs, people who are able to claim police protection. What was the position of the ordinary African in those circumstances?
The report says that there is no evidence—it is difficult to produce evidence of these things—that the ANC Executive organised violence, but in paragraph 379 agitators are accused of stirring up violent demonstrators. What agitators? We read of busloads being transported considerable distances in Matabeleland North:
Large crowds, well organised and drilled…dominated by a few politically active cheer leaders.
Yet the Pearce Commission tells us that intimidation was short-lived. How can the Commission be sure that it did not alter the verdict? It certainly altered the verdict of identifiable individuals.
Who said "Yes"? Ovewhelmingly, Europeans, Asians and Coloureds said "Yes". These people are fairly well educated. One can find a number of Africans who are better educated than a number of Europeans. One can find Europeans who do not qualify for the A roll, but on the whole that is the well educated section of the population who said "Yes". As for Africans who said "Yes", they amounted to about 9,000, about as many as the Africans qualifying for the A roll. Who can be surprised that unemployed school leavers were "invariably against the settle-

ment"? Any of us would vote against almost anything put up by the authorities in such circumstances.
The tragedy is that this fiasco has put back the time when capital can come in and provide these people with jobs. People were voting "agin" the Government, rather like those Frenchmen who abstained in large numbers from the referendum on the enlargement of the Community. They were abstaining not because they disagreed with that but because they wanted to make a protest against M. Pompidou. This was the case in Rhodesia. Opportunity was given to the African people to express their discontents and their mistrust.
The Commission saw the dilemma. In paragraph 150 the Commission said that it regarded itself as precluded from allowing:
the view of 10 wise men to overweigh the view of 10,000 foolish men.
That gets to the bottom of it. If we accept this quantitative assessment—it is not a thorough quantitative assessment because it touched only a minute fraction of the population—counting the heads of the foolish and the heads of the wise, how in the name of fortune can we refuse logically, as both parties in the House refuse, a claim to "one man one vote"? If we consider of equal merit every single African opinion on an intricate constitution which the electorate in this country would not find easy to understand, how can we deny the right of "one man one vote" in parliamentary representation?
I conclude by referring to what the Commissioners in the city of Bulawayo said so well about the unsolved problem:
African mistrust of Europeans and European fear of being overrun.
I came to Rhodesia on this visit from Zaire. President Mobutu had recently sent a company of infantry to Burundi: we know, and the Rhodesians know, what has been happening in Burundi. The memories of the Congo refugees are still alive in European and African minds in Rhodesia.
Only the other day I received a letter from a relative who has been farming for years peacefully on good terms with all races in Tanzania. He says that the days of the European farmers are numbered. Not even in conservative Kenya


has a future been assured for the children of the Europeans who came to settle and work the land and not merely to make money and quit.
We seem to be in the presence of three main choices: first, conflict and revolution; secondly, evacuation of the Europeans and Asians, or at least an acceptance that they have no permanent homeland; and, thirdly, the policy of evolutionary change as outlined by my right hon. Friend. To secure this I believe we should be prepared to implement these proposals, as we suggest in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). In any event, we must recognise two facts: first, that Rhodesia is an independent State; secondly, that the power resides in Salisbury and not in London.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Some reply should be made to the speech of the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and also to the speech made by his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). Neither hon. Gentleman was prepared to assert that the proposals were acceptable to Rhodesians as a whole and that the Pearce Commission had reached the wrong verdict. Nor did they deny the Pearce conclusion that these terms were not acceptable to Rhodesians as a whole.
The hon. Member for Chigwell argued that if the Commission had consulted the wisest people, or if the question asked had been "Should these terms be accepted by wise people?", the answer might have been "Yes". But the hon. Gentleman did not claim that the people of Rhodesia as a whole did other than reject these proposals.

Mr. Hastings: What I was seeking to say was that I cannot accept the clear-cut nature of the judgment. I felt that the evidence which was presented should have been heavily qualified, and it was not.

Mr. Stewart: It is true that the final conclusion is contained in a few paragraphs, but every aground quoted to us in this debate in questioning the validity of the conclusion comes from the Pearce Report itself. It went to enormous pains to set out the different views—in other words, that some of the Commis-

sion's teams said one thing and some another. The principle on which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire appeared to be working was that if there were a small number of teams of Commissioners who said that there was intimidation, one ought to believe them. The Pearce Commission quite rightly weighed up the matter as a whole.
As for the argument about qualitative judgment, let us remember what the Fifth Principle was. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary is deeply committed to it and we have been reminded that Mr. Ian Smith himself thought of it. The fifth principle does not say that the settlement shall be acceptable to those Rhodesians who are considered to be the wiser ones; in other words, by people who want certain proposals accepted. The fifth principle says that it must be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The difficulty of the Commission was that it was bound to treat an uninformed "No" or an uninformed "Yes" in the same way as it treated an informed "Yes" or an informed "No". One sees from the report that the Commission was aware of this problem. Secondly, it touched on a fraction of the population. After the fiasco of the public meetings, Lord Pearce appealed to the silent majority to come forward, but the silent majority did not come forward. The question in my mind is whether a lot of tribal areas did not accept the remarks of the Council of Chiefs because, to many Africans, the chiefs spoke for their tribesmen.

Mr. Stewart: It will be remembered that a number of chiefs when addressing the Commission privately expressed a different view from that which they had expressed previously when under the shadow of officialdom. We must bear in mind what the report says about the shadow of official pressure. I hope that the time I have spent in answering the various interventions will not be counted as an infraction of Mr. Speaker's request for short speeches.
I found the line of argument adopted by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire fascinating. I particularly liked the passage which implied that if we want to find out what a man wants now, we


must not ask him what he wants now. We must ask his employer what that employer thought the man wanted about a month earlier. I invite the hon. Gentleman to read his speech to see that I have not misrepresented him. Applying these principles in reverse, I should be happy to be allowed to prove conclusively that the 1970 General Election proved that the country wanted a Labour Government. Certainly everybody knows that that is what they want now.
We must turn to the serious issues involved, but I mention that aspect because it is a fixed point that the Africans as a whole, and the great majority of the Rhodesian people, have rejected the settlement, and it is no good trying to wriggle out of it. The practical reason why they rejected it was that to an African the heart of the matter is that he wants advance to complete equality of rights among human beings, irrespective of race or colour. That is what it is all about. He would want advance to be certain and unimpeded and not to be laboriously and unnecessarily delayed.
In the end what the African will say about any proposals is, "How much delay will these proposals mean in terms of gaining the goal?". Secondly, he will ask, "What faith have I that the road set out in these proposals will be travelled along at all?" He might be willing to accept a longer and more laborious road if he were certain that it would be pursued. But the trouble with the proposals with which the Pearce Commission was concerned was that the content of immediate advance and speed towards equality was so little that, when combined with general lack of confidence in the Smith regime, the African answer was almost bound to be "No". Many of us from the start were not in the least surprised at the result of the Pearce Report. But so many Members have pointed out that the vital question for us is: How do we go on from here?
I should like to say to the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt), whose speech I much admired, that we on this side find the Government's Motion totally unsatisfactory and that is why we feel it right to vote against it tonight. We cannot just leave the problem in suspense.
One group of people who gave evidence which much impressed the Commission

was the group that represented economic and commercial interests. It is pointed out in paragraph 255 that there are enormous difficulties which the Rhodesian economy will face if sanctions as well as general economic and social ostracism in the world continue.
I understand it to be and I hope that it is the Government's policy that sanctions will continue if there is no settlement. For that reason, it is not entirely over-optimistic to suppose that there is a considerable body of white opinion in Rhodesia which will say, "Since we have not got a settlement on these terms, we ought to look for something which will be more acceptable to the Africans." I believe that that group exists. I believe that it has never been as resolute and as vocal as it might have been. People of that frame of mind should now speak up a little more.
Another reason why we cannot leave the situation as it is was spelt out by one witness who wrote to the Commission saying:
It is widely proclaimed that no other better agreement between Britain and Rhodesia was possible and that therefore it should be accepted. However, it should be pointed out that neither the British Government nor that of Rhodesia has any right to decree that no further attempt be made to solve the problem on the basis of justice. If there is no justice in the Proposals, then let those responsible for the omission start again and see that it is put there. Without justice for all, there can be no real settlement and consequently no permanent peace.
In other words, it is not for Mr. Ian Smith's régime or for the British Government to say, "We cannot find anything more acceptable to the African than that." The logic of the facts is that they must try.
What is the alternative? Recently I have come back from taking partin a programme on Italian television with one white Rhodesian and one black Rhodesian. We saw certain films depicting aspects of the Rhodesian situation. One was a film of guerrilla preparations. It is very easy and perfectly true to say that such preparations today are puny compared with the massive power that the Smith régime can assemble. But we have learned nothing from the history of the last 20 or 25 years if we do not know that movements like that grow if justice is denied. That is why we cannot leave the situation where it is.
At this juncture, there is a possible way forward. I quite agree that it is easier to make a speech about it in this House than it is to put it into practice. But it is our business here to suggest what seems to be practicable. There is a suggestion for a conference of all races and groups in Rhodesia. The question has been raised, which groups? I believe that the Pearce Commission itself provided the answer to that. No one can dispute that the number of groups of people whom the Commission met—grouped together by many different criteria—gave a real impression of the groups that the people of Rhodesia are made up of and what they are like. Such a conference would be possible.
I am not sure whether it was the African National Council which first proposed it. But certainly the proposal has its strong backing and, compared with other proposals that it might have made, it is a reasonable and moderate one. It is interesting to notice that at the recent conference of the Organisation for African Unity it was this and certain other quite moderate proposals by the ANC which were approved, to the rejection of extreme proposals.
I digress for a moment to make one brief point. I am informed that at the recent OAU conference, although there were messages from various heads of Government there was none from Her Majesty's Government. I hope that I am misinformed on that and that there was such a message. If President Nixon could send one, I do not see why our Government should not send one. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell me whether my information is correct.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will look into that.

Mr. Stewart: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman cannot inform me now. It is not only leaders of the ANC who sometimes have gaps in their knowledge. I think that the Foreign Secretary deserved that one. It was a little unfortunate that he made that slighting reference to a member of the ANC when he had no word of criticism for Ian Smith or any of his colleagues. That was an example of the serious lack of balance in his speech.
We have the possibility, then, of moderate African opinion being able to assert

itself. We even have the possibility of a conference of all parties and groups in Rhodesia. However we must be clear about one matter. It has to be admitted all round that the goal is the complete equality of human rights for people of all races and colours and not to give mere lip service to it with statements like, "It will not happen in our lifetime." No one is seriously suggesting that it happens this year or next. But it has to be within a measureable period, and progress to it has to be unimpeded. If that is generally accepted, there is room for a good deal of compromise about the when, the how, and the drafting of constitutions.
I cannot see that Ian Smith will accept what I have called that essential. His proclamations all the time show him to be immovable. That must mean in the end someone wiser—someone with the philosophy of the majority of hon. Members opposite, whose opinions we ought to count more than Mr. Ian Smith's. There must be a wiser spokesman for white Rhodesians and a wiser leader than they have now. To help bring about that result, it is essential to keep sanctions on resolutely.
That brings me to my last point, which is why we find the Motion unsatisfactory. Not only can it merely take note of the Pearce Report; it does not even mention sanctions, and it speaks no more of the Government's desire to achieve a settlement on the five principles. Instead of desire, there should be determination. What is more, I was a little alarmed at the Foreign Secretary's use of the expression "status quo" about sanctions. I do not dispute that Britain has a very good record in the observance of sanctions. We have been diligent in trying to prevent breaches by others.
But I commend to the Foreign Secretary the words of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), who pointed out that the time may be ripe now for a real diplomatic initiative with the African and Asian countries. They are now in the mood to stop trying to pass impossible Resolutions demanding that we solve the problem single-handed by military force. It could be pointed out to them that more to the point would be to direct their quite justified anger against countries which say that they are observing sanctions and are not doing so. I am


not speaking of South Africa and Portugal, which present special problems.
The breaking of sanctions by a Government is not a sin of commission. It is a sin of omission in not taking sufficient precautions to see that their citizens do not break the law. Here we should not say just, "Maintain the status quo." There has to be a real diplomatic drive. It is that lack of drive, energy and zeal in the Motion and, I am afraid, in the tone of part of the Foreign Secretary's speech, which I find alarming. The right hon. Gentleman omitted any criticism of Ian Smith, yet he criticised all Africans for turning down the proposed settlement, and hecriticised a member of the ANC. The right hon. Gentleman said that there must be time for reflection, but he made no suggestion that it was Ian Smith and the white Rhodesians who have the most reflecting to do.
I was left with the impression from my recent conversation with the white Rhodesian and the black Rhodesian that the gulf is not in the last resort impassable. However, to bridge it, clearly it is essential that there should be no doubt about the resolution of the British Government to go on indefinitely, if necessary, not only with the maintenance of sanctions themselves but with the policy of rejecting every form of racialism in every international forum.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I agree with very much of what the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) said. I hope that he will acquit me of any discourtesy in not following him in detail, because, like him, I have promised Mr. Speaker that I would be short.
The right hon. Gentleman and I have the same broad approach to these Commonwealth problems but in this case we started from a different premise because, unlike him, I voted for the settlement without, I confess, great enthusiasm but on a narrow balance as the most hopeful solution of a difficult problem and the only one that we were likely to get.
I still think that it would have been the best solution, but when I returned from a visit to Rhodesia with the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley)

as long ago as early February I reported to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that the Pearce Commission would record a massive rejection of the settlement terms by the majority race. I was sure of that because the hon. Gentleman and I had seen with our own eyes and heard with our own ears the same evidence as Lord Pearce and his colleagues, and so it was not surprising that we came to the same conclusion.
When the Africans were given the power of the veto it was clear to anyone who knew Rhodesia and who visited the country at that time that they would use that power. Many reasons were given by the Africans for their decision. Some were directly related to the terms of the settlement, such as the fact that the franchise was too difficult for most Africans to achieve. Other reasons were based not on the terms of the settlement but on the African's opinion of the Smith régime. Some of my hon. Friends are rather critical of that as a reason, but that is not my view. If the majority of the people say "We do not trust Smith", that seems to me a valid reason for rejecting a settlement which depends upon his good faith. However, whatever the reasons, there was no doubt to any impartial observer that the rejection was genuine and numerically overwhelming.
Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) and Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who were not in Rhodesia at that time believe that intimidation was an important factor. That was not my experience. There was intimidation, both ways, but its extent should not be exaggerated. There is no doubt that some Africans put pressure upon other Africans to say "No", and that some European firms and employers put pressure on their African staff to say "Yes" in such a way as to make the African fear that if he did not say "Yes" he would lose his job; but the extent and the degree of the intimidation was relatively small and did not prejudice the work of the Commission. The report is a very thorough and unequivocal document, and I am sure that it reflects faithfully the views of the majority of the Rhodesian people.
On the face of it, and of the acceptance by all parties in this House of the


fifth principle, I am sure that my right hon. Friends are right to continue sanctions. Indeed, they have very little alternative; and I must say to some of my hon. Friends below the Gangway that it would really have been too cynical to say "We have got an answer that we did not want. Of course we never really meant the fifth principle. We know best what is best for you and we intend to do it no matter what you think". That sort of thing could perhaps have been said 20 years ago, although it would have been difficult to get away with it even then, but it is too paternalistic in 1972 when we have given the rest of Commonwealth Africa independence under black Governments.
In the aftermath of the Pearce Report there are no easy options for anyone. The Africans are quiet now, and Bishop Muzorewa is a moderate who does not want violence; but this Commission is the catalyst which has created African unity in Rhodesia, and I do not think that, having tasted political power for the first time, the Africans will for long be content with the status quo under the 1969 constitution.
I acknowledge that Mr. Smith's position is also very difficult. He has two major problems, the first of which is economic. He is acutely short of foreign exchange. He desperately needs a large injection of foreign capital, not only for development, but to renew and re-equip some of his obsolescent or semi-obsolescent services such as the railways. His second difficulty is political. It is the problem of the African population explosion and the high level of unemployment among the Africans. Either of those problems or a combination of the two could, and in the end probably will, lead to his defeat.
In theory I suppose Smith could disarm his critic is by implementing his side of the settlement despite the African rejection. If he had the statesmanship to do that there might be a hope of another negotiation, ideally on a tripartite basis, in a few years' time. Meanwhile, if he took that action, perhaps we could respond by giving our £5 million a year for African advancement which, although technically in breach of the sanctions policy would, in fact, be in tune with it and in line with its objectives.
But I think that all that is really wishful thinking, because if Smith so much as attempted a policy of that sort he would at once be overthrown by his own party and replaced by someone further to the right like Mr. Partridge. That would be in the white Rhodesian tradition, where sooner or later every Prime Minister becomes too moderate for them.
To avoid that, Smith is much more likely—and there are signs that he is already taking this line—to lead the European backlash with harsher policies, greater discrimination and tighter security measures. Inevitably he will move further into the South African orbit; not that South Africa wants that. She would prefer to maintain a low profile, but in the end she must sustain the Rhodesia Front if she can.
My guess is that the Front can carry on for several years with its present policies—perhaps for three years; perhaps even for as long as 10—but in the end they will have to negotiate again if sanctions not only continue but can be made more effective. That is the crux.
Should sanctions, and can they, be made more effective? Up to now, as many hon. Members have said, we are about the only country in the world which has honestly observed sanctions 100 per cent. Most countries have cheated or evaded, to their own advantage, buying cheap in Rhodesia and selling dear to Rhodesia. France and Germany have been quoted as examples, and Japan has driven a coach and horses through the whole sanctions policy.
In those circumstances, what should be the policy of the British Government? Rightly, I believe, my right hon. Friend wishes to keep the door open and see how the situation develops in Rhodesia. He knows that Smith came to the conference table only because sanctions had hurt, but they had not hurt enough to induce the Rhodesia Front to give the Africans terms which they could accept. Logically, therefore, we should try to induce other nations to tighten their sanctions rather than weaken our own.
I acknowledge that in practice sanctions are more likely to be eroded than to be strengthened, but I do not think that we should encourage that in any way. We should reject it. I understand the sort of reasons that there must be, but


I was surprised at, and did not like, the British abstention at the United Nations, and I agree with what the right hon. Member for Fulham said on these matters.
It is alleged by some people that we are losing commercially. In fact, we are losing about £30 million of exports a year to Rhodesia out of a total external trade of £19,000 million. It really is peanuts, and if we were to drop sanctions we should risk the loss of at least as much trade with the rest of Commonwealth Africa. Our exports to black Africa last year were worth over £560 million, and, as the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) said, our investment in Nigeria alone is greater than it is in Rhodesia.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: On this very point of the likely effect on British trade with the rest of black Africa, is there any evidence that Japan, which is known to be in breach of sanctions, is suffering in its trade? I gather that it is growing rapidly in the rest of black Africa. If not, is there any reason why we should be particularly discriminated against in this respect?

Mr. Fisher: I do not know whether other hon. Members can help me here. I must be honest and say that I do not know whether Japan's trade with black Africa is suffering because of her trade with Rhodesia. So I could not answer the question—

Mr. Richard Hornby: Surely it is one thing for Japan, a relative new comer to African markets, to break sanctions and quite another for a country with a colonial past and long traditions of friendship to think that it can go along with political practices which are out of sympathy with these countries and at the same time suffer no change to its considerable trading position.

Mr. Fisher: I thought that my hon. Friend was going to give the factual position which I could not supply, but, in fact, he made the very point which I was about to make in my next sentence. I was going to say that the standards by which Commonwealth Africa judges Britain are different from the standards

by which she judges other countries which she regards as foreign countries. We have a special relationship. Perhaps one could call it a love-hate relationship, but there is a love element. We are not expected to do things which would be acceptable if done by other people.
We should not overlook in this context the importance of Nigeria, whose oil is a high card which she will play if need be. This is something of which we should be conscious if we are talking in these terms.
My conclusion is that sanctions should continue. At best it will be a long haul, with sporadic outbursts of violence ruthlessly suppressed. It will take quite a long time. Sanctions will either slowly work or slowly fail over the years according to the efficiency with which they are applied. After Pearce, I am sure that nothing in Rhodesia will ever be the same again, and I must honestly say that I am not optimistic about the prospects for a peaceful future so long as the Rhodesian Front remains in control of the country, because I believe that in the end people must be governed by consent, not by force—and there is no consent in Rhodesia today.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: It pained me deeply that in November last year, the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) found himself able to support these proposals, and that we were divided on that issue although we had stood together on similar issues in the past. I am grateful, therefore, that he has come back into the fold and that we are now in union again. Perhaps that was because we shared to some extent the journey around Rhodesia at the same time as Lord Pearce.
It is impossible for anyone who was present on that occasion for however short a time to take any other view than that the Pearce Commission properly reflects the opinion of the vast majority of Rhodesians who were vociferously stating their views at that time. It was manifest to me, to the hon. Member for Surbiton and to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley)—the only three Members who were present on that occasion—that the Africans were saying "No", that they knew that they were saying "No", that they had a clear


understanding on a large scale of the proposals, even frequently on the minutiæ, and that they were sincerely saying "No".
As successive British Governments since 1963 have said that no settlement would be acceptable to this House unless it was also acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, it would have been hypocritical for any British Government then to have said, "We have put it to the test and the answer is 'No'. Nonetheless, we will ram it through". I am delighted that the Foreign Secretary did not succumb to what must have been, at one stage at any rate, a temptation to do that.
But it means, does it not, that he cannot go on to say, as he said today, "What they are saying 'No' to was Mr. Smith and not my proposals. My proposals still stand, and we must therefore wait a little time until they perceive how good those proposals are, at which point they will come around to the view that Lord Goodman and I took in November last year, that this was not perfection but was certainly the way forward for Rhodesia in the circumstances."
I do not think that, in November of last year that was correct. I certainly do not think that the Africans that I saw thought that it was correct. They knew why they did not like these proposals—because they gave no certainty of unimpeded progress towards majority rule, because the pace at which they could expect any acceleration towards majority rule was very slow. It was dependent, it is true, not on the erratic and capricious element of the proportion of income tax paid by the Africans, but it was to be an adjusted pay regulator, which would be affected by the amount of European immigration into Rhodesia and by the prospect of more Europeans coming on to the roll.
But, worst of all, it was founded upon the 1969 Constitution. In the past, I rejected both the "Tiger" and "Fearless" proposals, but at least they were founded upon the 1961 Constitution, which was not a racialist constitution. But the 1969 Constitution is apartheid, not only in its expression that there can never be other than parity between the two races, black and white, but in the way that it breaks down the races, providing that there should be eight elected seats for

the Africans coming from the urban Africans and eight indirectly elected seats coming from the rural Africans, and that the seats should be divided between Mashonaland and Matabeleland.
Today, the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) intervened to ask who were the Africans—were they Mashona or Matabele? One thing that has come out of this whole exercise of Pearce is that the Africans are one. They are united as they have never been united before in their complete opposition to Smith and to these proposals. They have found the kind of unity which has been sadly lacking in all their administration in the past in Rhodesia, when there was this bitter dispute between ZANU and ZAPU.
One of the interesting stories that I heard was that during the Harare riots, when Africans had been milling about in the township, one young man had gone around shouting, "ZAPU!" and the whole group had turned on him and said, "We have finished with that; we are one." Everywhere I went, at every level of society, I found the same expression.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not the case that the Commissioners met many more Africans who said "Yes" in Matabeleland than in Mashonaland? Does this not to some extent reflect the difference of view between different groups there?

Mr. Lyon: With respect, it is merely what one would expect, that there would be differences between different parts of the country. What no one has yet pointed out is that the two bands of Commissioners who took different judgments from the others came from the largely rural areas of Matabele North and Victoria, which are largely game reserves anyway and sparsely populated. Over the whole country, where 100,000 Africans were seen—not 9,000, as the hon. Gentleman suggested—the overwhelming opinion was "No". It was "No" in public and in private, and it was "No" at every level of education. The proportion varied between public and private. In public, only 1 per cent. were saying that they were in favour of the proposals; in private it was 15 per cent. Nonetheless, 85 per cent. of the electorate saying "No" is a fairly large majority by any standards.
I was saying that the proposals themselves were unacceptable, and rightly unacceptable, because they were founded on the 1969 Constitution. But the other limb of the Foreign Secretary's argument for the proposals was to stop the rot towards apartheid of a South African style. My understanding, which I was glad to have confirmed by Mr. Pat Lewis, who was the chairman of the independent Constitution Commission between 1961 and 1969, was that there already is on the Rhodesian statute book—and it is not affected by these proposals—enough legislation, were it to be effectively enforced, to create the kind of apartheid that already exists in South Africa. Anyone who disputes that might care to look at an article by Dr. Claire Palley, who has considerable experience of Rhodesia, in "Race" in October, 1970, in which she sets out all the comparative legislation of Rhodesia and South Africa.
The two countries have almost identical bodies of legislation. The Rhodesians could, if they wished, enforce pass laws, with the whole business of influx control. They could create separate areas for Africans. It is true that they could not create an independent Bantustan. That might be considered to be an advantage for the Africans that they would not want to concede. But they can create Bantustans which are not independent within the existing legislation. They have the law and Order Maintenance Act, which is in every respect, taken with the right to create special security arrangements in times of emergency, as damning as the Terrorism Act or the Suppression of Communism Act. Already the legislation will give them apartheid if they want it.
The proposals that the Foreign Secretary was making in November will not stop it. Therefore, they need not worry about the blocking mechanism that was given by the necessity to get a majority vote of the Africans. The blocking mechanism would have had a different effect. I do not think that this was the Foreign Secretary's intention, but it would have had a different effect. When they got to parity in the proposed Constitution, they would then move on to another 60 seats. There would not be majority rule in our sense, which is that every man has his vote and the majority elect

a Government. What it would mean is that one would be still classified by a group, but the black group, the African group, would have 60 seats as against 50 seats for the white group. But they would never be able to go beyond that to have proper majority rule as we understand it in this country. They would never be able to get beyond that because the blocking mechanism would then work for the European. It would be the European who, in the end, under this Constitution, would have required the blocking mechanism and would have used it. But everyone else, in the meantime, would have been subject to a State which would have been very similar to South Africa.
Therefore, we ought to have done with the Goodman proposals, as we have had done with "Fearless" and "Tiger". We had to put them behind us. There will be only one principle in any future negotiations with Smith, and that principle is that the Africans must be at the negotiating table. If the Africans are there, and if they negotiate as part of the total deal and agree with the proposals that have been hammered out, there is no need for the five principles. The five principles are designed to protect Africans in a situation where white governments are negotiating on their behalf. But if the Africans are there and are prepared to agree to the final proposals, the five principles are not needed.
It is true that one needs Africans there who are representative of African opinion as a whole and that it would be as well to take the proposals back and check with the people of Rhodesia as a whole. In that sense, perhaps, the fifth principle could remain. But as long as one was sure that the African leaders were truly representatives of those on behalf of whom they were negotiating, one should not need even that. But it would be as well to have it.
But that, and that alone, is what one needs for the future. It is not NIBMAR. Bishop Muzorewa told me that they might be prepared to negotiate something much less than NIBMAR provided that they were sure that within a reasonably foreseeable time they would have African majority rule and they could be sure that steps to that end would not be blocked by the whites whilst still in power. Therefore, it is not for us to ask that the Africans should have NIBMAR and


nothing less. But if one insists on the Africans being present, that is the best guarantee.
The difficulty is that Smith will not concede that. But both Smith and the Africans are at an impasse. Smith cannot deliver the African opinion as he once thought he could. That is what Pearce has proved. But, equally, the Africans do not have the power to compel Smith to let them to the conference table. Therefore, we have to redress the balance. That is what sanctions should be about in the future.
We have to find ways of intensifying the pressure with sanctions. It undoubtedly exists, though not to the extent that we would wish. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary has started off badly by suggesting that Rhodesian exports have recovered to 97 per cent. of the pre-UDI total and, therefore, sanctions are not having much effect. He does not go on to say, as the Minister of State has conceded, that that 97 per cent. figure is cast in current prices and not in constant prices. If one allows for the inflation that has occurred since 1965, one finds that there has been a decrease of about 20 per cent. in Rhodesian exports.
The exporting side, trading, is the part that has been least hit by sanctions. What has been hit most by sanctions is overseas private investment and the foreign currency position. Taking all that together, it is no wonder that the effective life of a tractor in Rhodesia of about five years before UDI has lengthened to 15 years, and it is no wonder that they cannot replace the rolling stock on the railways and that they are still working with tired out Viscounts on Rhodesian Airways.

Mr. Iain Sproat: So are we.

Mr. Lyon: There comes a time when these things will catch up with the economy. All the commercial interests to which one speaks in Rhodesia recognise that if sanctions go on for much longer they will be very severely hit.
Intensifying sanctions is not asking for the moon. The difficulty with the sanctions position at the United Nations since 1965 has been that the Afro-Asian countries have taken the view that Britain should use force; that if we did not use

force, they would not support sanctions, because that was an unacceptable alternative which would fail anyway. But they have now come round to a much more realistic assessment of the situation. They know that force will not be used and they are looking for ways in which sanctions can be intensified.
One of the ways in which sanctions can be intensified is by checking upon Rhodesian exports, particularly of minerals, at the ports of entry into other countries. This would have to be done by some roving United Nations force of inspectors. The mineral deposits can be tested, and it is possible to determine the actual mine from which the ore came. It is not necessary to look at the ship's manifest. The test can be made and it is possible to be certain that the material came from Rhodesia. The sanctions against tobacco have been biting. If the sanctions against minerals were biting, too, this would have a profound effect upon Smith's capacity to go on and, therefore, to change his attitude to the question of African representation at the negotiating table.
For that reason, I hope that the Government will pay attention to that part of the Opposition's Amendment which calls for an intensification of sanctions and a resort to the United Nations.

8.30 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has accepted the verdict of the Pearce Commission and has called for a reasonably long period for reflection and discussion by all communities in Rhodesia of the way ahead.
My right hon. Friend's initiative in reaching agreement and putting the proposals to the test of African opinion may yet be judged as the most promising step so far towards a better future for all communities in Rhodesia. This consultation of African opinion and the acceptance of their verdict has done great credit to Britain in Africa and far beyond. The Pearce Commission has opened up a window on African thinking in Rhodesia. It has shown that for the future there must be three and not only two parties consulting together before any new settlement is reached. The Africans must be consulted.
The Commission's work was carried out in the face of many difficulties, but the Commissioners and their team of helpers had deep and varied experience of working in Africa. Indeed, the thoroughness of its work would, I believe, be generally accepted as a very impressive job by all people with any experience of administration in Africa.
I am sure that the Commission's conclusions are accepted by African opinion in Rhodesia and elsewhere in Africa. The Rhodesian Africans rejected these proposals for two basic reasons. First, they had not been consulted in advance over a policy which would affect their lives for many years ahead. They were not prepared to have their futures decided entirely by two other parties neither of them African.
Second, the Africans' experience of the recent régimes based on the Rhodesian Front gave them no grounds for expecting help towards a reasonably rapid political and economic advance. Indeed, in all their recent actions the authorities in Rhodesia had been moving purposefully in the opposite direction, towards apartheid. Since the agreement of last Autumn they had taken no action to help convince the African population that they had now changed their direction.
Yet if the Rhodesian authorities had had the good will and the political imagination they could then have done something to show that they believed in the spirit of the agreement. They could have taken symbolic but important action on three of the most sensitive problems—land tenure, secondary education, and racial discrimination. But they showed no such good will. They did nothing to show that they meant to change direction. They took no action to show that from then on they would be seeking greatly increased opportunities for Africans to participate in the economic and political future of Rhodesia.
Mr. Ian Smith has recently said in a debate in Salisbury that he is willing to implement the terms of the agreement but that the terms are not negotiable. He offered either the rejected terms or the 1969 Constitution. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said that the 1969 Constitution could lead only to confrontation and conflict. The alternative

offered by Mr. Smith is the recent settlement that has already been rejected by the Africans.
That "either/or" attitude holds no hope for the future. There is a new situation and a new African determination, and there must be new thinking.
There will be no acceptance by Africans and no collaboration in any settlement until they are consulted in advance and until the Rhodesian Front give evidence that it has changed direction towards African advance. It will, as the Foreign Secretary said, require time for any such consultations in Rhodesia. It will also require time for Ian Smith, if he so decides, to convince the Africans that his Government is in earnest in making it possible for Africans to participate more fully in the economy and to have an increased share in making the political decisions in Rhodesia.
What could persuade the Rhodesian Front that for the long-term interests of those whom they represent, the best course lies in that direction and not in repeating that the terms of the rejected settlement are not for negotiation? What does the Rhodesian Front want? First, I suggest, it wants to have a stable and peaceful country in which it will hold a controlling power for as long as possible. Second, it wants to get rid of sanctions and to gain access to investment in the capital markets of the world. Third, it wants to win the willing collaboration of Africans in building up the economy of the country.
If Mr. Smith's answer is merely to insist on ruling firmly on the basis of the 1969 Constitution, his Government will not achieve these three objectives. It will achieve increasing apartheid, internal strife and a hopeless waste of African manpower in the economy.
Britain still has a major responsibility towards Rhodesian Africans. That was reaffirmed vividly by the visit of the Pearce Commission. Britain still has a major influence through sanctions. I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend that these measures will continue. They could, if they are maintained, continue as a powerful incentive to Mr. Smith's régime to think again on the best way ahead. I hope that, in the interests of all communities in Rhodesia, Mr. Smith will consult Africans representative of all sections of African opinion and take


steps that will show that his Government have changed direction and will work for a reasonably rapid advance of Africans in the economic and political life of Rhodesia. That could set the scene for a new settlement by which all communities could advance together.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: For the sake of brevity, I hope that the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) will forgive me if I do not follow him in detail.
I agree with the content of the hon. Member's speech, which I thought was admirable. He speaks with great experience of Africa. I endorse the tribute he paid to Lord Pearce and his Commission for the way they carried out their work under difficult circumstances. No one can doubt that they did everything possible to satisfy themselves that the views of every section of the community representative of every race and creed were investigated.
Mr. Smith, predictably, has criticised the Report of the Pearce Commission. Amongst other things he called it "naïve" and "inept". No doubt he and his colleagues of the régime would have preferred a brisk guided tour of short duration with Rhodesian officials as guides. The Commission, to its great credit, resisted all suggestions to limit its operations. It was Mr. Smith who was naïve and inept to expect that a Commission led by Lord Pearce would connive at a pretence or accept arrangements which suited only the régime's purpose. The Commission had a duty to the people of Rhodesia as a whole if the fifth principle was to mean anything. It carried out that duty thoroughly and conscientiously.
It could be argued that the exercise was unnecessary for a number of reasons: for example, that the result was inevitable and could have been foreseen by people who knew the Rhodesian scene well. On reflection, I do not subscribe to that view.
I am glad that the Commission spent this time in Rhodesia for the reason that the Africans of Rhodesia, at last for and the first time, were given the opportunity to express their views. Those who have no vote, those who are in detention, those who are afraid and oppressed, have

at last spoken, and no argument or propaganda can gainsay this. To try to argue, as Mr. Smith has done, that the majority of Africans are still for the proposals is so dangerously unreal as to make one despair.
One of the arguments advanced by the Foreign Secretary and others—the right hon. Gentleman referred to it again in his speech today—is that the settlement would have been more beneficial to the Africans than to anyone else because it is they who have suffered most from the effects of sanctions. This is perfectly true. But it is this very fact which gives the rejection by the Africans its force and nobility.
The report shows that the Africans recognised that there would have been economic benefits for them. There would have been £50 million from Her Majesty's Government and an additional £50 million from the Rhodesian Government. But they want more than this. In the words of the report, in paragraph 310, they rejected the proposals
which they held did not accord them dignity, justice or fair opportunities, and which did not accord them the parity of recognition which was as important to them as parity of representation.
They have rejected independence for their country, therefore, because they have no confidence that the proposals will give them personal freedom and independence.
Beyond this, as the report again makes clear, mistrust of the intentions and motives of the régime transcended all other considerations. If they had faith in therégime, many of the Africans might have opted for the proposals, inadequate as they are. The fact is that the record of Mr. Smith and his colleagues has given none of them, nor any of us, any cause for confidence.
Even the 1961 constitution was far too progressive for Mr. Smith. Throughout the negotiations of the last seven years, he and his colleagues, Mr. Lardner Burke and others, have at the end of the day left the impression that they were determined to maintain white domination in Rhodesia as far ahead as they could see. This was always the main difficulty. This is why safeguards of the most concrete kind with external sanctions were always important. This is why the talks on "Tiger" and "Fearless" ultimately broke down.
I believe that the attempts to achieve a settlement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition were fully justified. No one could have worked harder or more patiently to find a solution. I played some part in these affairs at that time, and I well know the enormous obstacles and difficulties which stood in the way of achieving an honourable settlement.
Responsible Governments do not readily abandon the possibility of settling disputes honourably by negotiation. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government, in due course after taking office, were justified in making this latest approach. We failed in our time because Mr. Smith and his régime did not, and do not, intend to make clear progress to a free and multiracial society. This is the fundamental problem which we face—it is the fundamental problem which the Government now face—and it is the tragedy of the position because failure to make progress will in due course, as many hon. Members have said, have appalling consequences.
I think back and recall an occasion in October, 1965, when we had been discussing the five principles with Mr. Smith and a number of his Cabinet colleagues. This was before Mr. Smith made his illegal declaration of independence. It became clear as we were going through the principles one by one that we were far from agreement on each of them. In due course, after many days of talk, the discussion came to a fruitless conclusion, and Mr. Smith said "We have failed to agree on these principles. Can we now discuss ways and means of moving smoothly to independence?" In other words, it was not the substance of the negotiations or the principle involved but the obtaining of independence at any price which concerned him. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition gave a short, sharp reply to that proposal.
There is always an air of unreality when one talks to Mr. Smith about these principles. It is as if one is talking to someone from another planet.
But we must now think ahead. Is there still the possibility, as the Foreign Secretary hopes, of a settlement? Mr. Smith has said "If the British Government are not prepared to implement the agreement, it follows that we shall continue to govern in the terms of our existing constitu-

tion"—that is, the 1969 constitution. This is a grim prospect. As the Foreign Secretary said in a speech on 26th January, the constitution has iniquitous elements.
Is it not intolerable to suggest or contemplate that Africans must move towards greater suffering and apartheid just because they have rejected the terms? The Government should ask Mr. Smith this question: If the proposals are thought to be right, why does not the régime implement them? I know that it was a package, but if they pause and contemplate the implications of the Pearce Report and decide voluntarily to implement the proposals they will gain great credit here and internationally. We do not regard them at matching the first four principles, but their implementation would show that there was some sincerity in the régime and they might well mitigate the undoubted distrust of the 5 million Africans in Rhodesia.
The white Rhodesians must therefore pause to consider the Pearce Report. In my view, it is mainly a message for them, and they will ignore it at their peril. But, meantime, sanctions must continue, and I hope that the Government will take the most active steps through the United Nations to ensure that they become more effective. Most hon. Members, with one or two predictable exceptions, have agreed that steps should be taken to strengthen them.
The Foreign Secretary said on 23rd May:
We are the only country which has been keeping sanctions. Every month we draw the attention of the United Nations to breaches of sanctions, but no one takes the slightest notice."—[Official Report, 23rd May, 1972; Vol. 837, c. 1229.]
It was clearly out duty to enforce sanctions. What the Foreign Secretary said was a serious admission. Many countries have criticised Britain for not taking more stringent action against Rhodesia in the United Nations and other organisations, but our country's record is honourable, and I deplore the "whited sepulchre" posture of some countries which criticise us.
I was looking this morning at the reports in the Library of the Committee on Sanctions set up by the Security Council, and they made very sad reading. There are wholesale contraventions.


directly through Rhodesia and indirectly through South Africa and Mozambique. The chairman of the committee said in June last year—this is the latest report which is available—that he feared that the committee might give the impression that its members
did not all have the same aim and that it was wavering in its commitments to enforce the sanctions.
It is an extremely serious situation. The Government must study the position in the United Nations and the work of this committee very carefully and decide what further steps should be taken. I believe that our representative in the United Nations should take steps immediately to ascertain whether all the countries which voted for mandatory sanctions are now prepared to take action to implement them. It would be better for the reputation of the United Nations and the countries concerned if they either complied with them or made plain that they wished to abandon them.
This report is the latest chapter in a sad history. It is the story of men of British stock who have deliberately turned their backs on the best traditions of their old country and on the opportunity to create a truly multi-racial State in Africa. It may be that it is too late to turn the tide or, as the Foreign Secretary said, too late "to reverse the trend". But we must hope that it is not.
I am worried at the Government's Motion because it lacks determination, a positive approach and any firm indication that new and more effective steps will be taken to compel the régime to realise that we will not erode sanctions or drift into a de factorecognition of Rhodesia. That would be bad for this country, and we would not be forgiven for it. That is why we must vote against the Motion tonight.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Harold Soref: I am sure the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) will forgive me if, because of the pressure of time, I do not refer to his speech. I should like to thank you for calling me Mr. Deputy Speaker because I have had a lifetime's association with Rhodesia and I last visited that country this year. I have listened to almost the entire debate and I have found it bedevilled by the introduction of so many abstractions and those

who claim to be spokesmen for black Africans have projected their own ideological preconceptions into the situation.
When I visited Rhodesia during the Christmas Recess I discovered a fact which will interest those on the Opposition benches, that among the 20,000 or so British who have emigrated to Rhodesia since UDI is a very high percentage of tradesmen who have stronger views over Rhodesian politics even than Mr. Smith. In fact, a very high percentage of the Rhodesian Front support comes from former Labour supporters and trade unionists from this country who have emigrated to Rhodesia.
The other interesting fact concerned the attitude of the Asians, who have not been mentioned during the debate today. On previous visits to Rhodesia the many Asians I know there have expressed different views about the situation. But on this occasion the leaders of the Asian communities told me that the Asians and Pakistanis living in Rhodesia were in favour of the proposals because they were so disturbed at the racialism which existed to the north in the independent black States and they felt there was infinitely less racialism in Rhodesia than anywhere to the north.
There is no question of Indians losing their trading licenses, as they have in other countries. Rhodesian Indians are not having to emigrate to this country as they have to do from independent black African countries.
I found that a large number of Africans, particularly those who have trading stores, were intimidated to vote against the proposals. They told me in the African townships outside Salisbury that regardless of their own views and what they thought was in the interests of Africans, (they would be forced to contribute to the ANC. If they did not, their shops would be boycotted and they would be stoned. That is proved by the Pearce Report, which shows the degree to which intimidation took place.
Many hon. Members have referred to the necessity, or the desirability, of African participation in a future constitutional conference. I listened with particular care to the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who suggested that Mr. Kkomo should be amongst those present at any conference. But let it not be for-


gotten that as recently as 1961 Mr. Joshua Nkomo said:
I will not rest until the rivers of Ziambabwe run red with the blood of every white man, woman and child and every African who supports them.
I referred to Mr. Nkomo as "Mr. Nkomo", but I notice that many hon. Members opposite refer to the Prime Minister of Rhodesia as "Smith". I do not think we shall get very far by being offensive to someone who is in control of a country which has shown considerable progress, although many people may not like it, during the past few years.
The ANC is a coalition of two terrorist organisations, ZAPU and ZANU. There were incursions by ZANU supporters from Zambia during the presence of the Pearce Commission to create yet more terrorism. There was a report just after I left Rhodesia which said that
The activities of ZANU are illustrated by the statements made by three men who entered Rhodesia with arms of war and explosives. They stated that they had been sent into Rhodesia by ZANU in order to upset the work of the Pearce Commission and to show the Africans in Rhodesia that ZANU opposed the settlement proposals. One of them said that they were told 'when we get to Rhodesia we should try to disrupt the Pearce Commission by shooting the Europeans in the streets and place land mines'. Another said, 'We were to take them (the arms) to Rhodesia and use them to cause trouble and fear so that the Africans would not support the settlement proposals.' ".
In the Pearce Report there are no fewer than 18 paragraphs giving evidence of the intimidation which took place during the Commission's presence there, which had a very serious effect. Paragraph 204 says that the ANC had been actively canvassing against the proposals before it arrived in nearly all the African areas which it visited, and ex-detainees were leading spokesmen of rejection. It is also significant that paragraph 248 says
…a Commissioner noted that the majority of those present could, in his view, easily have been persuaded to vote either way. We think that these Africans were often looking for a lead and that the response of those who received a lead was determined by whether it came from the employer or from the anti-settlement groups.
In fact, had the Commission arrived sooner and had Mr. Smith's Government gone out as missionaries to sell the proposals, the settlement might have been accepted. We do not know, but it is pos-

sible, because the report maintains that a vacuum was created by the absence of any attempt by the Administration to mount such a campaign.
I should like to refer briefly to sanctions. Instead of arguing the matter in the abstract, let us remember that only last week there was the terrible mining disaster at Wankie. Are we to say that anything is achieved in terms of civilisation or of helping Africans by refusing to supply, or allow anyone else to supply, spare parts and mining equipment in order that the mines at Wankie which were affected can continue? Is it achieving anything if we create more unemployment in Rhodesia and, incidentally, interfere with the economy of the copper mines in Zambia, which are largely dependent upon Wankie coal and coke?
No practical alternative has been put forward in the debate to the existing situation in Rhodesia. When people in Rhodesia look north, regardless of race they see anarchy and chaos. We are told stories of the plight of Mr. Garfield Todd and Mr. Chinamano, whom I saw when I was in Salisbury. But what about the plight of Mr. Kapwepwe the former Vice President in Zambia, or of the 150 others recently detained there, indefinately without trial under President Kaunda's security powers, or of the 15,000 political detainees in Ceylon? The new Commonwealth has thousands of people who have been detained and imprisoned with no right of appeal, with their cases never heard. Yet not a word of condemnation is uttered. It seems that there are two standards, one of them for the people of Rhodesia, who have brought a high degree of civilisation to that country, and the other for those with lower standards who are exonerated.
Although there may be certain people who do not like the white man in Rhodesia, he has produced employment. He has produced something from the bush which he found when he originally arrived. He has provided a standard of living—something we do not often hear about—for the Rhodesian African. Rhodesian Africans do not try to emigrate. On the contrary, Africans from countries to the north desire to emigrate to Rhodesia because the standards of living and social welfare are better. If we criticise Rhodesia, we should at the


same time recognise what that country has done for all its population.
At the same time, we should also recognise, as the report does, the danger of incursion by Communists from the north, not least by Frelimo, which I gather is supported by certain hon. Members opposite. Rhodesia has to defend itself against these things and it is largely because of this hostility that the Rhodesians are forced to become perhaps unduly chauvinistic. Hon. Members opposite have referred to the unsatisfactory economy of Rhodesia, butlet it not be forgotten that, during the first quarter of this year, its industrial output increased by 15·8 per cent. which was more than double the previous period. The net white immigration last year, which was the highest for 14 years, rose 22 per cent., and there were record maize and cotton crops.
We have been discussing UNCTAD in this House and the question of aid to every conceivable and inconceivable country. Is it not amazing that a small country like Rhodesia, despite sanctions, has an improving economy? We are doling out money to country after country, many of which enjoy every advantage and certainly suffer no sanctions, yet cannot make a go of it. Rhodesia, however, despite every hindrance put in its way by us and others, has gone ahead. When we consider the position in Rhodesia, we should realise that because of the small European minority it has become viable and through co-operation between all races. The army and the police are full of Africans. There is the utmost harmony in their activities. Obviously, more can be done. Rhodesia, like all other countries, can be criticised, but I, and the Rhodesians, feel that it is often unfairly criticised because of the double standards applied.

Mr. Ivor Richard: This has been in many ways an interesting and perhaps significant debate. It has been a significant debate because we are not discussing solely the minutiae of the Pearce Report, although in a few moments I shall have one or two things to say about the details, particularly in answer to some of the criticisms that have been made both in Rhodesia and repeated in the House tonight. It is, however, much more significant in our

opinion than merely the consideration of one report, even by a Commission headed by such a distinguished judge as Lord Pearce.
What we have to decide is what, if anything, should now happen, and in a way the Foreign Secretary is perhaps suggesting that the best posture for Britain at the moment is inactivity rather than action. What, if anything, should be done over our policy towards Rhodesia, especially as regards sanctions, the possibility of future negotiations, what participants there should or might be in any future negotiations which might or can take place, whether any negotiations can take place and, if so, on what lines they should be conducted?
I must say at the outset that one of the truest things that has been said during the debate, said by a number of people, is that British policy towards Rhodesia can never be quite the same after Pearce as it was before. This is one of the great climacterics for Southern Africa, comparable perhaps with the Jameson Raid and certainly with the Monckton Report, which had such a profound and lasting effect on British policy towards South Africa. Pearce marks a deep and fundamental change in the situation, primarily because the Rhodesian Africans have now felt their political strength. Until they were consulted, until the British Government accepted the fifth principle, and until we had this test of acceptability, the Africans in Rhodesia never had a chance to flex their political muscles, and never had a chance to feel their political strength.
I believe that the African National Council organisation which sprang up so quickly and successfully when the Pearce Commission was mooted and when it arrived in Rhodesia could and would be repeated, perhaps in another form and perhaps under other leaders, if a similar test of acceptability were ever to be pursued again. Once that strength has been recognised by the Africans in Rhodesia and once a veto has been given to them, it will be impossible in future for any British Government to deny them that veto and that political strength in one form or another.
It is only a small extension of the present position, when we are saying to the Africans "We give you a veto, a chance to decide whether you find the


proposals acceptable" to say to them "You shall now have an initiating power and a right to be consulted when the proposals are drawn up".
The division in the House tonight is three-fold. We have had the Rhodesian Lobby on the other side in great evidence in the debate, and we always welcome them. [Interruption.] We should welcome them because they are at least an expression of Rhodesian opinion, and it is only right that when this House is considering the affairs of Rhodesia the Rhodesian Front voice should be heard, clearly and unmistakably, so that we recognise it for what it is. The Rhodesian Lobby in this House is saying in a simple and straightforward way "Let us not continue to pursue a policy towards Rhodesia based upon the desire to establish a multi-racial society there." It is saying, as was said very firmly, if I remember rightly, at the time of the secession of the Southern States of America in 1860, "Of course we think they are all mistaken, but let the erring sisters depart and in time they will return to us in peace." That seems to be the type of attitude which underlies some of the arguments we have heard from the Rhodesian lobby.
Secondly, we have the Government position which was expressed by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. The Government position is "We tried on the best possible terms we could get from the Smith Government, to get those terms accepted by the Africans in Rhodesia, but, unforunately, they said 'No', and we have few new ideas about what to do except that we want time for reflection—not a time for us to reflect, not a time for the white Rhodesians to reflect, but a time of reflection so that the Africans can improve their comprehension." Those were the words used by the Foreign Secretary which shocked me at the time.
The third attitude in the House is the one expressed by both the Opposition parties. The Liberal Party and the Labour Party are totally united in a firm definite and strong opposition to any possible settlement in Rhodesia which would prove to be unacceptable to the majority of the Rhodesian people as a whole and which was not otherwise firmly
In view of the criticisms which have been made of the Pearce Report in Rhodesia and by some hon. Members this evening it is, however, right for us to spend a few moments looking at the criticisms and at the report.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: In case the hon. and learned Gentleman should unwittingly mislead the House, I said that time should be given for all Rhodesians, and particularly the Africans, to look again at the terms of the settlement. That is rather different from what the hon. and learned Gentleman said.

Mr. Richard: I am reluctant to swap sentences with the right hon. Gentleman but I wrote down what he said:
I accept what Lord Pearce found in general and I therefore ask for more time for Africans to comprehend.
That is the actual phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman. He went on to say that the efforts must come from the Rhodesians themselves. When the speech is published I shall, however, read the Foreign Secretary's words with a great deal of interest and attention.
To return to the criticisms of the Pearce Report. If we are agreed that future British policy and proposals on Rhodesia will continue to be based on the necessity of prior acceptance by the majority of Rhodesians we had better draw what lessons can be drawn from the Pearce Commission.
The first criticisms are those which Mr. Smith made. He has been very helpful. On 6th June Mr. Smith made a speech in what purports to be the House of Assembly in Rhodesia. He started off by making a broadcast in which he criticised the British Government for what he called "bungling" the test of acceptability. On 6th June he said:
I now wish to refer briefly to the understandings reached over the test of acceptability during the protracted discussions which led eventually to the summit meeting last November. The British attitude to the test was established at the very first meeting held on 3rd April 1971, and to indicate this attitude I can do no better than quote from the record of proceedings—'The British delegation pointed out that there had to be a fair test of acceptability but not one which was loaded against the prospect of acceptance of a settlement. The British Government saw a commission, suitably composed and given the right terms of reference and able to act with speed, as the best instrument for conducting the test of acceptability'.


He went on to say that the British delegates
 '…wished any such exercise to be done as quickly as possible and with as little upheaval as possible…and, above all, they would not wish any test of acceptability to be regarded as a whitewash but, on the other hand, they would wish to see that it came up with the right answer'.
The impression given clearly to our delegates was that the exercise would be a quiet testing of responsible opinion and that the emphasis would be on ascertaining whether the proposals were acceptable in the light of the alternative of retaining the status quo. The British negotiators expressed the view that there would be little doubt of the result if the commission approached the inquiry with the object of determining whether the people preferred the settlement proposals to retaining the present position.
Two points arise on that topic. If Mr. Smith is right, is it true the British Government said that the exercise would be a quiet test of responsible opinion? Was that the attitude with which we went into these negotiations? Was this how the Foreign Secretary at the time saw the fifth principle and the test of acceptability; namely, only as a quiet testing of responsible opinion?
Secondly, is it also true that the British negotiators expressed the view that there would be little doubt that the result of the Commission would be a "Yes" rather than "No"? Did we go into these negotiations and say "This is the way we think the Pearce Commission will be set up"? In other words, did we want to have a nice quiet test of opinion so as to get the answer we wanted?

Mr. Temple: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman have preferred a noisy test of irresponsible opinion?

Mr. Richard: No, I would have preferred to see a democratic public test of the voice of the people of Rhodesia as a whole. Indeed, I think that is what we got. But I am asking whether that was how we initially went into the negotiations and whether that was the understanding we gave to Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith's second criticism was that the Commission did not get on with its work quickly enough and rejected the advice of the experts. He seemed to be saying—and this was repeated by the hon. Member for mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings)—that a rushed job would have been much more likely to produce a "Yes" than a "No"—at a time when

the population, by definition, would have been less informed because there would not have been the time for overt propaganda and publication of the proposals, at a time when the terms would have been less discussed because there would not have been the time for much discussion, and at a time when there would have been no opportunity for any normal political activity connected with the test of acceptability.

Mr. Hastings: I said precisely the opposite. I said that the time devoted to propaganda for a "Yes" was dated from some four weeks before the Commission arrived, whereas those who set out to sell the other point of view started only at the other end.

Mr. Richard: I do not think the hon. Gentleman understood my point. The criticism made in Salisbury—a criticism which I thought was being echoed by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire—was that the Commission did not get on with its work quickly enough and that the exercise took too long. If the hon. Gentleman did not say that I withdraw it, but that was certainly one of Mr. Smith's complaints.
The third complaint is in some ways directed towards the Foreign Secretary. It was again made by Mr. Smith in his remarkable speech in Rhodesia a few days ago. He then complained about the British Government changing their mind and said that at some stage the British Government had a change of heart and, to quote his actual words, went on to say that they were.
…planning for a negative verdict by the Commission.
I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Foreign Secretary or the British Government at any stage believed that they controlled the Commission to such an extent that they started off by planning for a "Yes" verdict and then changed their mind and decided that, in British interests, it would be better to have a "No" verdict rather than a "Yes" one. Although the Foreign Secretary smiles, I am sure he will have read the speech and will have noted the points made by Mr. Smith.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also take on board the fact that it is necessary that those points should be answered. The only way they can be


answered is for the Foreign Secretary to do what we did on a number of occasions in relation to Rhodesia, and that is to public a Blue Book on the details of the correspondence and the negotiations which took place between the British Government and the Rhodesian Government before the Commission was set up.
I must, however, deal with another of Mr. Smith's criticisms because it is rather more substantial. He said:
On the same day that Lord Harlech made these remarks"—
this was in February—
I received a message from Sir Alec Douglas-Home asking if I would meet an emissary from London during my forthcoming visit to Cape Town. The necessary arrangements were made and I had two meetings in Cape Town at the beginning of March with Sir Philip Adams, who was Deputy Secretary in the British Cabinet Office and a member of Lord Goodman's negotiating team. The gist of the message he brought from Sir Alec was that although the British Government was hoping for a 'Yes', they considered it highly likely that the Pearce verdict would be 'No'. If this should happen the British Government would not feel able to implement the settlement—at any rate at this juncture.
I asked the House to note that last passage.
The British Government hoped, however, that the Rhodesian Government would not close the door to further discussions. This was another dear indication that the British had made up their minds.
I must press the Foreign Secretary on this, and I hope that the Minister for Overseas Development will deal with it. First, were there meetings in Cape Town at the begining of March between Mr. Smith and Sir Philip Adams? If there were, what was the gist of the message conveyed to Mr. Smith by Sir Philip Adams acting on behalf of the British Government? Is it really true that Mr. Smith was told officially on behalf of the Government that if the Pearce Commission reported a "No" verdict, the British Government would not feel able to implement the settlement "at any rate at this juncture"? If the words "at this juncture" were used, or if that was the substance of the message conveyed by Sir Philip Adams to the Rhodesian Government, what on earth did the Foreign Secretary mean?
What is one to understand by the words "at any rate at this juncture"?

The only inference that one can draw is that, if Mr. Smith's version is correct, in March Her Majesty's Government were Saying to the Rhodesian Government "We think that Pearce will come up with a 'No'. Therefore we shall need a nice, quiet time for reflection until things die down, and eventually we may be able to implement it despite the Pearce Commission's Report." I do not think that this is a point which can be ignored. If that was the message which went from the British Government to the Rhodesian Government, if the substance of it in effect was saying "Hang on. Not at this juncture, but perhaps later on", then the plea that the Foreign Secretary made today for time for reflection, for time for thoughts to crystallise and for time for the Africans to comprehend more becomes somewhat more sinister than perhaps otherwise it would appear. I hope that the Minister for Overseas Development will deal specifically with that point. I ask again: was that the gist of the message passed on by Sir Philip Adams to the Rhodesian Government?
I turn now to the detailed criticisms of the Pearce Report. I shall not go through them all, because I do not think that many of those hon. Members who have criticised the report, either on its methodology, on its personnel or on the detail of it, have made out a strong case.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire criticised the fact that the Pearce Commission went for a quantitative rather than a qualitative test. I do not share that criticism. I do not even understand it. It seems to me that the quantitative test that the Commission went for was not as full and as comprehensive as that of an election, a referendum or a public opinion poll. Nevertheless it was a better test than a qualitative test in which the quality of the voice and the weight to be attached to the voice were to be decided by the Rhodesian Government. If one look sat what Lord Pearce says about the advice tendered to him by the so-called experts in Rhodesia one sees that they were telling him not to talk to ordinary Africans but to concentrate his attention on such people as the chiefs and those which the Rhodesian Government claimed to be representative bodies—[Interruption.] Apparently the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire disagrees, but that was one of Lord


Pearce's criticisms. It appears in the report.
When one considers the people who presented the Pearce Report the criticisms made by the hon. Gentleman become ludicrous. He says that they could not assess whether intimidation was taking place, that they could not understand whether the Africans truly comprehended the proposals and that they could not do the job that they had been sent out to do. Let us look at the composition of the Commission, not merely the Big Four of Lord Pearce, Lord Harlech, Sir Morris Dorman and Sir Glyn Jones, but at the Commissioners, the teeth end of the Commission.
There was Mr. Blain, with 12 years of service in the Provincial Administration of Tanganyika; Mr. Blake, with 15 years service in the Sierre Leone Administrative Service; Mr. Blunden, with 21 years service in Northern Rhodesia and later Zambia; Mr. Burges, who had18 years service as a District Commissioner in Northern Rhodesia; Mr. Burkinshaw, who spent the earlier part of his service as a District Commissioner in Sierre Leone and the last five years as a Deputy Provincial Commissioner in Nyasaland; Mr. Butler, who spent 13 years in the Overseas Civil Service in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands and Swaziland; Mr. Cashmore, who was a District Officer in Kenya; Mr. Dawkins, who served in Sierre Leone from 1945 to 1962; Mr. Essex, who served in Sierre Leone, Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland; Mr. Frost, who served for 18 years in Northern Rhodesia; Miss Gwilliam, who served on a number of Commissions in Africa; Mr. Harrison, who served as a District Officer in Swaziland from 1949 to 1968; Mr. Hayley, who served in Northern Rhodesia; Mr. Large, who served for 15 years in Northern Rhodesia; Mr. Massingham, who served for five years in Sierre Leone; Mr. Patey, who served for 16 years in Swaziland; Mr. Rawlings, who served for 20 years in Zambia; Mr. Strong, who served for 17 years in Tanganyika; Mr. St. John Sugg, who retired in 1963 as Provincial Commissioner of the Southern Province of Northern Rhodesia; and Mr. Whitfield, who served in Northern Nigeria from 1949 to 1959.
I find it utterly impossible to believe that a collection of people with that experience of Africa, with that experience

of administration of the part of Africa about which we are talking and which the Pearce Commission was considering, had the wool pulled over their eyes as comprehensively as the hon. Gentleman seemed to be suggesting.

Mr. Hastings: I did not say that the wool was pulled over anybody's eyes, but the teams consisting of people with the experience to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred came to the conclusion that they could not produce a responsible assessment because of intimidation.

Mr. Richard: I have read the names of the Commissioners who carried out the assessments and I have given the experience which they had of the area, including that of the members of the two teams who worked out the method by which the intimidation was to be assessed. They were the people who assessed the intimidation, who viewed the comprehension of the Africans, and who finally came up with that conclusion. If the hon. Gentleman has forgotten the conclusion of the Pearce Report, I shall read it to him. It says in Paragraph 418:
We ourselves have no doubt from all the facts and circumstances and our own observations that, in sprite of the incidents of intimidation, the Africans' rejection by a substantial majority was a genuine expression of opinion.
That, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, is what the Pearce Commission reported, and it was men of that experience and that back round who came to that conclusion.
On the quesion of comprehension, I must say to the hon. Gentleman and partly also to the Foreign Secretary because in some way it was implied in a lot of what he said, that the degree of paternalism implicit in some of the criticisms of the Pearce Report is fantastic. If one goes back to a broadcast statement by the Rhodesian Government one finds this extraordinary phrase:
It is therefore difficult to find any grounds from which an inference of comprehension on the part of tribesmen can be drawn. Indeed, they, in particular, were voting solidly against their own interests.
In other words, "We, the Rhodesian Government have decided what is in the best interests of the Africans. The Africans have voted against what we consider to be in their best interests. Ergo, it follows that they cannot have


comprehended the terms and have failed to understand the proposals that have been put to them…". It is a massive and total non-sequitur, and it is one which I trust the House will reject.
I come finally to a point which has been overlooked in much of the argument on the report. A fair amount of written evidence was given to the Commission. In paragraph 271, we find the reference to African written evidence. This is not a question of intimidation, of hands going up at a public meeting or of everyone standing around in the open air being intimidated by the African National Council. The paragraph says:
In round figures, 51,000 Africans submitmitted written views to us, either through our office in Stability House or through the Commissioners in the field. Eleven thousand expressed their opinions in letters or memoranda to Stability House; over 10,000 signed petitions; and there were approximately 25,000 signed forms. The balance represents written evidence given to our Commissioners. Nine thousand Africans were in favour of the Proposals, 41,000 were opposed, and just under 1,500 'Don't know'.
I find it almost beyond comprehension that any hon. Member who has taken the trouble to read the report and study the evidence could come to any conclusion other than that Lord Pearce's Commission did a difficult job extraordinarily well, and came to an honest, fair and unassailable conclusion.
In view of their overwhelming rejection of the proposed settlement, what is to happen?
A certain amount has been said about sanctions in this debate and whether they are effective or not can be gleaned just as easily as anywhere else from Pearce himself. If one reads what Pearce says about the reasons that the Europeans in Rhodesia gave him as to why they favoured the settlement and these proposals, one sees that they were primarily economic. They believed that the removal of sanctions would allow the Rhodesian economy to move ahead faster and in a better and more sensible way. If sanctions have been effective to that extent so far, it is obviously right not only that they should be maintained but that, if possible, they should be strengthened.
What we are looking for from the Government, and what we have been

looking for in vain, is a determined diplomatic campaign by the Government, both at the United Nations and through all our allies, to make sanctions more effective. Perhaps we can tighten up the UN machinery on sanctions. Perhaps its main purpose here is collecting information and publicising breaches. There may be a need for a permanent secretariat in the Sanctions Committee of the UN whose job is just to consider whether more publicity can be given to sanctions breakers. There may also be a case for tightening up what I would call the social sanctions such as passport restrictions. If we are serious about this, it is something that should be considered.
Finally, it is impossible for us on this side to accept a situation in which Britain gives up her responsibilities towards the Rhodesian Africans. Quite apart from the morality of the policy of scuttle, what effect would that have on our posture throughout the rest of Africa and at the United Nations?
There is indeed only one honourable position for this country now to take up—we should state our position firmly and try to work towards it with all the diplomatic machinery that we have and all the other weapons at our disposal. What is the position at which we should be aiming? I echo the Foreign Secretary's remark that we believe in an evolution towards the establishment of a multi-racial society in Rhodesia. That is the object of our policy. Furthermore, we have to state very firmly and unmistakeably that we are not prepared as a nation to give the imprimatur of constitutional respectability to a régime whose policy is moving in the opposite direction.
If one puts the whole matter into any kind of historical perspective, one finds that this is the final act of our imperial extraction. On the whole, our passing from empire has been honourable. It has certainly been remarkable. We have been spared an Algeria and an Indochina. Someone once said that we have never had the advantage of having our colonies taken away from us by force. There may have been some advantage in that summary process, but on the whole the extractive process has gone well and honourably for us.
However, it would be the bitterest irony if the last act in the liquidation of


the whole of the British Empire were to be the acquiescence by the House of Commons in the handing over of four million Africans to an entrenched white minority rule, which is what the whole problem is about.
It is, therefore, because of the lack of firmness and definiteness and the lack of resolution on the part of the Government and in the opening speech by the Foreign Secretary, both as to sanctions and the direction of future policy, that we shall divide the House this evening.

9.35 p.m.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): We have been discussing a Motion and an Amendment. The Motion commits the Government to continue the search for a settlement on the basis of the five principles. In order to assist that search, the Motion also proposes a pause, during which the arguments and conclusions of the Pearce Report may act as a catalyst on Rhodesian opinion. That opinion—we do not know—may or may not be changeable or amenable to change. If it is, there is a further chance of a settlement. If it is not, the outlook is extremely bleak; I think that we all recognise that.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), in what I would call one of his tough guy speeches, thought that this approach was tepid. The right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Liberal Party, in rather more civilised phrases, was also critical of the Motion. But the Motion includes the objectives which most hon. Gentlemen who have spoken today seem to hold in common. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) spoke with varying degrees of passion about their desire to see a multi-racial society in Rhodesia. But it surely is only after a pause for reflection that such a settlement could possibly be reached. The Opposition Amendment, which presumably is intended to warm up the tepidity of the Government's Motion, makes no mention whatsoever of such a pause.
The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) was critical that we only "take note" of the Pearce Report. But the Opposition Amend-

ment does not even do that; it does not mention it. The right hon. Gentleman thought that the word "desire" was too weak. He wanted the strong word of determination. I know that he is a better master of English than I am and always will be, but I assure him that "desire" can be a very strong word indeed. I should like to make it perfectly clear that the "desire" of my right hon. Friends is almost overwhelming.
The right hon. Member for Fulham also, with slightly less relevance, raised the omission, which he attributed to my right hon. Friend, of not sending a message to the recent meeting of the OAU. I have made inquiries, as the right hon. Gentleman wanted me to do, and have found that it has never been the custom of either the present Government or the previous Government, when the right hon. Gentleman was Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, to send such messages. I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman had been aware of that, he might, perhaps, have pressed his point rather more gently than he did.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Time marches on, and some time ago it was not a widespread practice among other Governments to send messages. As a large number of other Governments had sent messages, I merely inquired whether we had done so, and I expressed mild surprise when the Foreign Secretary said that he did not know whether we had done so.

Mr. Wood: The answer is that we followed the practice of the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps we should now begin to improve upon it.
Before discussing some of the implications of the Opposition's Amendment, I want to look back to one or two basic facts which are sometimes forgotten when our emotions become a little aroused in debates of this kind. When Rhodesia unilaterally declared its independence, the Labour Party—no one needs reminding of this—was in power. When the Labour Government imposed sanctions, they made it absolutely clear that they were not prepared to contemplate the use of force to restore Britain's authority.
We agreed with that decision, as the world knows. There is no difference between the two sides of the House on the use of armed force in resolving this matter. Therefore, if any solution can


be achieved it must be a solution which is achieved by negotiation.
Right hon. Members opposite tried negotiation on two occasions without success. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, after many months of careful preparation, made a further attempt. That attempt came near to success; and I believe that it can still provide the basis for a settlement.
I stress again that, if success can be achieved, it must arise from negotiation, and it can arise in no other way. This must be so because, if Britain is unwilling to impose her will by military force, and successive Governments have made this plain, it can be resolved only in this way.
In seeking to achieve a negotiated settlement, Britain has taken the lead in exerting pressure on the Smith régime, and sanctions have been the main instrument of this pressure. I hope that I shall have time later to deal with the operation of sanctions.
My right hon. Friend pointed out that these pressures have been exerted for over six years now. He pointed out also that they have not achieved any decisive political change, but I myself have little doubt that they have played a part in leading up to the proposals for a settlement which were hammered out by my right hon. Friend with Mr. Smith, and this has been of value.
Those proposals, in my view, came within the first four of the five principles. The judgment of the Pearce Commission is that they did not come within the fifth principle.
I do not think that it has been sufficiently stressed today that the very existence of the proposals, the activities of the Pearce Commission, and the contents of the Pearce Report itself, have together created a new situation both within Rhodesia and in the minds of all who are concerned to secure a solution to the problem, although it has been pointed out today that things will never be the same again.
I believe that there is much to be learned from a close study of the Pearce Report, which obviously a great number of hon. Members have read thoroughly, and I hope that it will be read and re-read by all parties in Rhodesia and by all

who genuinely want to bring about a satisfactory solution.
I want to make only one or two references to the report tonight. I draw attention, first, to paragraph 151, which discusses the validity of some of the reasons given for rejecting the proposals. It says:
Undoubtedly many of those who said 'No' were expressing disapproval of Government policies or distrust of Government's intentions rather than disapproval of the Proposals themselves.
My right hon. Friend mentioned this point. This theme runs right through the report. Elsewhere it is stated, rather more positively, that there were those who said that, if it had been Britain alone which was making the proposals and if they were to be carried out by Britain, it is likely that they would have been accepted.
Coming on to the paragraphs which give the reasons for African rejection, there is in paragraph 311 a direct quote from one African who said:
We do not reject the Proposals, we reject the Government.
The paragraph goes on immediately to say this:
This was the dominant motivation of African rejection at all levels…
It is perfectly possible that the Africans will continue absolutely to refuse to compromise with Mr. Smith. In that case, no settlement will be possible. I have quoted the words that I have because I believe that they show more clearly than any others in the report the extent of the barrier that still has to be broken down. But having done so, I hope that hon. Members will study not only paragraph 311 itself but the paragraphs which immediately follow it, because anyone who is looking for a way out of the present impasse can find much that is illuminating and much that, given good will on both sides, could lead to a solution which would be acceptable.
Again, although the Africans who accepted the proposals were very much in the minority, their viewpoint is extremely important and very illuminating. It is found in paragraphs 327 and 332. Paragraph 327 says:
The Africans who accepted the Proposals saw in them a chance for some political progress to end the present deadlock with the Government.


At the same time, it is only fair to point out that even among those who accepted the terms there was little enthusiasm. Paragraph 331 says this. It said that they have serious reservations. The point is that even with these reservations they recognise that the proposals show a definite move forward.
One can recognise the impatience of Africans who want to move more quickly to early majority rule, but surely it is better to be seen to be making steady progress towards majority rule than to be in the present posititon where all prospect of it is obliterated. That was the tragedy of the 1961 constitution. It was African impatience with the terms of that constitutiton and the hostility to it which started in train the events which have led inexorably to the present position. The proposals for the settlement which the Pearce Commission was examining provide the basis still for a way forward. It will be a tragedy for the African population of Rhodesia if some advance on these lines cannot bemade.
There are a great many further quotatitons that could be given.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman has addressed all his advice so far to the Africans as to what they should do and said that they should move because it is thought to be of some advantage to them. A settlement is also going to be a great advantage to the Europeans; there can be no doubt about that. What advice does the right hon. Gentleman propose to offer to Mr. Smith? Does he think Mr. Smith should be willing to move and have further negotiations, and perhaps give the Africans some further advantage?

Mr. Wood: I have not much time, and I was going to come to that point. Naturally, I am not going to try to give advice to a selected majority; I want to give advice everywhere I possibly can, and I only hope that that advice will be taken. I am trying to point out to those in Rhodesia, who will, I hope, study this debate, that the proposals for a settlement together with the detailed exposition of views of people of all races on those proposals could still provide a basis for progress. That is the whole purpose of the Government's Motion, which calls for a time for reflection.
Again, if I may give one more word of advice to the Africans in Rhodesia, I would say that, above all, the need is to accept one supremely important fact, that Britain will not use force, as it has not done in the past, to resolve the problem of Rhodesia, and that they cannot expect some entirely new solution to emerge as a result of Britain's actions.
Again and again the report makes clear that Africans in many cases rejected the proposals because they thought that Britain could and would propose something better. In this I fear they were deluding themselves. There is no doubt that the proposals were the best that could be obtained by negotiation. Mr. Smith has made it clear that he can make no further concessions, but he has not withdrawn or modified the proposals. Therefore, the choice for the Africans lies between the status quo with Mr. Smith or a better situation also with Mr. Smith. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East is now satisfied.
To Mr. Smith and his régime I would say that the need is to reflect that the present restrictions still remain. Sanctions still operate. Foreign exchange is short. The capital markets of the world are denied to him. The disability to which the right hon. Gentleman drew attention is with him. Above all, the legal independence which only Britain can grant is not available to him. Therefore, my reading of the report and the quotations I have made from it suggest that the negative answer seems to stem at least as much from a lack of trust as from a rejection of the terms agreed between Mr. Smith and my right hon. Friend.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East asked whether this was the end of the road.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Mr. Robert Hughes rose—

Mr. Wood: I cannot give way again. I am short of time.
Britain alone can grant to Rhodesia its legal independence. This is one of the reasons why Britain would be wrong to wash her hands of the whole business. Other reasons were given by hon. Members.
A settlement within the framework of the five principles must obviously be


founded on a compromise between the different racial groups in Rhodesia. If and when those racial groups see the necessity of compromise and are prepared to put it into practice, then, and only then, will exist the prospect of a settlement which Great Britain can endorse.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the renegotiation of terms. We believe that the terms negotiated by my right hon. Friend were as good as could be obtained. They remain on the table. However, for our part they are not sacrosanct and they are not inviolable. The reality is that we see no prospect that Mr. Smith will be willing to reopen the terms.
I now turn to the terms of the Amendment. I must obviously speak with moderation, but certainly I have seen on the Order Paper Amendments which were better directed, more directly relevant, and possibly more grammatical.
The first suggestion is that any settlement must be within the five principles. As our position had already been clearly spelt out in our own Motion, this seemed a little unnecessary.
We are then told that we should intensify and strengthen the present policy of sanctions. If I have time I should like to show clearly that it is not for Britain to intensify and strengthen her policy on sanctions.
There is no mention in the Amendment of the need for a period of reflection, which we regard as essential, to allow time for possible further developments in Rhodesia. Instead, there is an attempt to define rigidly how these developments might occur. My right hon. Friend certainly hopes that any future developments will be multi-racial, but we think it would be folly to rule out the possibility of any other initiative which might be forthcoming.
It has already been said that the African majority took no part in the "Tiger" or the "Fearless" talks or, indeed, in the last November negotiations, although my right hon. Friend saw many Africans in Rhodesia.
To try to lay down here and now exactly how progress might be made in future will not influence the situation on the ground in Rhodesia. Neither the present nor the previous Government were or will necessarily be in a position to

initiate discussions on this basis. We realise here, but it may not be so clearly recognised elsewhere, that the main purpose of the Amendment is to provide a peg on which to hang a Division, if one hangs Divisions on pegs.
The previous Government, like the present Government, from time to time found it very difficult—this is a serious point—to convince the Africans of the inability of Britain, without the use of force, to dictate the basis of any discussion or negotiation. I have tried tonight to emphasise this inability, but the official Opposition Amendment distorts the true position and brings back all the old doubts. If, by some mischance, the Opposition were wafted to this side of the House of Commons, they know there is nothing they could do to make sure that the talks they have in mind would take place in the atmosphere they desire.
I now turn to the issue of sanctions, which has been discussed by many hon. Members this afternoon. The Opposition's Amendment calls on us to intensify and strengthen this policy. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that this seems to suggest a misunderstanding of the position.
When in Opposition, while we supported the introduction of sanctions, we did not support the Labour Party in imposing mandator ysanctions under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter. But since we resumed office we have maintained these sanctions with complete integrity.
I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Nigel Fisher), because I do not think that we can lightly dismiss a trade loss of £40 million a year which has disappeared into a trickle of rather less than £700,000 a year, composed of humanitarian items such as medical supplies. It is not for Britain to intensify and strengthen her sanctions. The vacuum created by Britain has been filled all too readily by others. Rhodesia is importing as much now as before 1965. The difference is that the trade which belonged to this country has gone elsewhere. We have submitted to the United Nations Sanctions Committee about 170 notes giving evidence of suspected violation of sanctions. Examples could be repeated for ever, but the truth is that the cases which have led to effec-


tive action by other countries could be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Britain again and again is upbraided in the United Nations for not resolving the Rhodesia problem. It is not Britain that has failed; it is those nations which have not been able or willing to take sufficiently effective action against their own nationals, and it is the United Nations itself which has not pressed them sufficiently to do so. Therefore, if there is blame in this matter, let it lie squarely where it rightly belongs.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made clear today that our application of sanctions continues. The right hon. Member for Fulham complained that there was nothing in the Motion on this point. I should have thought that it was wholly unnecessary to put in the Motion the continuation of sanctions which had been renewed last November. The question has been raised whether sanctions will be renewed in November when the present order lapses. It has been pointed out in the House that it was the Labour Government who choose to introduce this legislation in a form which required annual renewal by Parliament. Presumably they did so in order to enable them to take account of any developments which might arise. We take precisely the same view, and we shall give ample notification of our intention on this occasion just as we have done before.
My right hon. Friend made abundantly clear that we were reverting to the status quo and that the status quo included not only sanctions but the Beira patrol. That is the position. I see no reason or need to pronounce finally today on a matter which has no relevance until November.
To be frank with the House, I am getting a little tired of attempts which have been made not only today but on previous occasions to throw doubt on our intentions and integrity regarding Rhodesia. I have appreciated the contrasting—[Interruption.] I hope that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East will allow the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) to hear what I propose to say to him. I appreciate the con-

trasting generosity expressed by the right hon. Member for Devon, North. It has been suggested on many occasions that the Pearce Commission would not be objective. Does the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East say that the Pearce Commission was not objective?

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman should say that to some of those on the benches behind him.

Mr. Wood: These smears and allegations have been proved to be completely unfounded on every occasion. The present Government will continue to act honourably and in accordance with what they believe to be right for the people of Rhodesia as a whole. The Labour Government tried and failed to solve the Rhodesian problem. I do not think that the Opposition therefore are particularly well fitted to decide what should happen or advise us of what we should do now.
This debate could have been a serious attempt to examine all the issues raised by the proposals which have been rejected and the issue raised by the examination of opinion on those proposals by Lord Pearce's Commission, to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has expressed the Government's gratitude. I glad to say that much of the debate has lived up to this need, but, whatever the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East says, I deeply regret the Opposition's decision to draw this great discussion down to the level of a party dispute.

Mr. Callaghan: I will try to improve my grammar next time.

Mr. Wood: It is not the first time, and I do not think that it will be the last, that the Opposition have failed to rise to the height of a great occasion. They have chosen the ground on which to fight. We accept the challenge, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in opposing the Amendment in the Lobby.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 296.

Division No. 221.]
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Atkinson, Norman


Albu, Austen
Armstrong, Ernest
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ashley, Jack
Barnes, Michael


Allen, Scholefield
Ashton, Joe
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)




Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Hardy, Peter
Murray, Ronald King


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony (Wedgwood)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oakes, Gordon


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Ogden, Eric


Bidwell, Sydney
Hattersley, Roy
O'Halloran, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Hilton, W. S.
O'Malley, Brian


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hooson, Emlyn
Oram, Bert


Booth, Albert
Horam, John
Orbach, Maurice


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oswald, Thomas


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Huckfield, Leslie
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Padley, Walter


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Palmer, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, Adam
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pavitt, Laurie


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cant, R. B.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Pendry, Tom


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pentland, Norman


Carter, Ray (Birming'h, Northfield)
John, Brynmor
Perry, Ernest G.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.
Prescott, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Coleman, Donald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Price, William (Rugby)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Probert, Arthur


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Richard, Ivor


Cronln, John
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kerr, Russell
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kinnock, Neil
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David
Roper, John


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lamborn, Harry
Rose, Paul B.


Davidson, Arthur
Lamond, James
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Latham, Arthur
Rowlands, Edward


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lawson, George
Sandelson. Neville


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Deakins, Eric
Leonard, Dick
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sillars, James


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius


Dormand, J. D.
Lipton, Marcus
Skinner, Dennis


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Small, William


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Loughlin, Charles
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Driberg, Tom
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spearing, Nigel


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stallard, A. W.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McBride, Neil
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McElhone, Frank
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Ellis, Tom
McGuire, Michael
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Evans, Fred
Mackie, John
Strang, Gavin


Ewing, Harry
Mackintosh, John P.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Faulde, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Swain, Thomas


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Taverne, Dick


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Foley, Maurice
Marks, Kenneth
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Foot, Michael
Marquand, David
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Ford, Ben
Marsden, F.
Tinn, James


Forrester, John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Tornney, Frank


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Torney, Tom


Freeson, Reginald
Mayhew, Christopher
Tuck, Raphael


Galpern, Sir Myer
Meacher, Michael
Urwin, T. W.


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Varley, Eric G.


Glnsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mendelson, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Golding, John
Mikardo, Ian
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Millan, Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wallace, George


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Watkins, David


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Molloy, William
Weitzman, David


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wellbeloved, James


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Whitehead, Phillip


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Moyle, Roland
Whitlock, William


Hamling, William
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick




Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)







Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Woof, Robert
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Mr. James A. Dunn.



NOES


Adley, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lane, David


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fortescue, Tim
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Foster, Sir John
Le Marchant, Spencer


Atkins, Humphrey
Fowler, Norman
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Awdry, Daniel
Fox, Marcus
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fry, Peter
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Batsford, Brian
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Loveridge, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gardner, Edward
Luce, R. N.


Bell, Ronald
Gibson-Watt, David
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
MacArthur, Ian


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McCrindle, R. A.


Benyon, W.
Glyn, Dr. Alan
McLaren, Martin


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Goodhart, Philip
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Biffen, John
Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Blaker, Peter
Gower, Raymond
Maddan, Martin


Boardman. Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Madel, David


Body, Richard
Gray, Hamish
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Boscawen, Robert
Green, Alan
Marten, Neil


Bossom, Sri Clive
Grieve, Percy
Mather, Carol


Bowden, Andrew
Grylls, Michael
Maude, Angus


Bralne, Sir Bernard
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Bray, Ronald
Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray


Brewis, John
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Miscampbell, Norman


Bryan, Sir Paul
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Moate, Roger


Buck, Antony
Haselhurst, Alan
Molyneaux, James


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hastings, Stephen
Monks, Ernle


Burden, F. A.
Havers, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus


Campbell, Rt. Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Hayhoe, Barney
More, Jasper


Carlisle, Mark
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Heseltine, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Robert
Morrison, Charles


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Higgins, Terence L.
Mudd, David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hiley, Joseph
Murton, Oscar


Churchill, W. S.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Neave, Airey


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Holland, Philip
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Clarke, Kenneth (Ruchcliffe)
Holt, Miss Mary
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Hordern, Peter
Normanton, Tom


Cooke, Robert
Hornby, Richard
Nott, John


Coombs, Derek
Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Onslow, Cranley


Cooper, A. E.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Oppenheim. Mrs. Sally


Cordle, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Osborn, John


Costain, A. P.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Critchley. Julian
Hunt, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Crouch, David
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Parkinson, Cecil


Crowder, F. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Percival, Ian


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
James, David
Pike, Miss Mervyn


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen .James
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pink, R. Bonner


Dean, Paul
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Jessel, Toby
Price, David (Eastielgh)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Dixon, Piers
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jopling, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Drayson, G. B.
Kaberry. Sir Donald
Raison, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Remeden, Rt. Hn. James


Eden, Sir John
Kershaw, Anthony
Rawilson, Hn. Sir Peter


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kimball, Marcus
Redmond, Robert


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Emery, Peter
Kinsey. J. R.
Rees, Davies, W. R.


Eyre, Reginald
Kirk, Peter
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Farr, John
Kitson, Timothy
Phys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fell, Anthony
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Knox, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Fidler, Michael
Lambton, Lord
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)







Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Stokes, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Rost, peter
Sutcliffe, John
Wall, Patrick


Royle, Anthony
Tapsell, peter
Walters, Dennis


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Ward, Dame Irene


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Warren, Kenneth


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Sharpies, Richard
Tebbit, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Temple, John M.
Wiggin, Jerry


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wilkinson, John


Simeons, Charles
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Winterton, Nicholas


Sinclair, Sir George
Thomas, Rt. Hn. peter (Hendon, S.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Tilney, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Soref, Harold
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Woodnutt, Mark


Speed, Keith
Trew, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Spence, John
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Sproat, lain
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Younger, Hn. George


Stainton, Keith
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Stanbrook, Ivor
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Waddington, David
Mr. Walter Clegg.


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of the Report of the Commission on Rhodesian Opinion; believes that it is right that there should be

time for reflection on the implications of the Report; and supports the Government in its desire to achieve a settlement within the five principles.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the Criminal Justice Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New Clause 7

LEGAL AID: DUTY OF COURT

In section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (Circumstances in which legal aid may be given) there shall at the end of subsection (5) be added four new subsections as follows:—
'(6) In the circumstances described in the next following subsections it shall be the duty of a court having power to make a legal aid order to ascertain, in the case of any person brought before it who is not represented by counselor a solicitor, whether such person desires to be so represented and, if such person states that he so desires, to consider whether legal aid ought to be granted to him, and if such court decides not to make a legal aid order in his favour, to state its reasons for such decision.
(7) In the Crown Court the circumstances referred to in subsection (6) above are:
(a) all committals, whether for trial or for sentence;
(b) appeals from a magistrate's court in the cases referred to in subsection (8)(b) below.
(8) In a magistrates' court the circumstances referred to in subsection (6) above are:
(a) all preliminary hearings in respect of offences triable only on indictment;
(b) all other cases where it appears to the court—
(i) that the nature of the offence alleged is such that the accused person may be in danger of losing his liberty or that his livelihood may be imperilled or that his reputation may be seriously damaged; or
(ii) that the matter alleged against the accused person or likely to be raised in his defence or in the defence of any other person which may affect his defence are likely to raise a substantial question of law; or
(iii) that the accused person is unlikely to be able to understand the proceedings or adequately to state his case owing to circumstances affecting the accused person including an inadequate knowledge of or ability to express himself in the English language or mental illness or other mental or physical disability; or

(iv) that the matters likely to be raised in the accused person's defence or by way of mitigation of sentence are likely to involve such work in or about the tracing or interviewing of witnesses or other preparation for the trial or to require such skilled advocacy as would normally involve the services of counsel or a solicitor; or
(v) that without prejudice to the interests of the accused person it is likely to be in the interest of some other person or in the public interest that the accused person should be represented.
(9) Where a court revokes a legal aid order it shall do so only after having taken into account the matters contained in subsections (6) (7) and (8) above, so far as applicable to the circumstances of the case, and it shall state the reasons for such revocation'.—[Sir Elwyn Jones.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.14 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
New Clause 7 relates to the duty of the court in respect of the grant of legal aid. It is now generally agreed that legal aid in all serious criminal cases is a necessary social service which should be available for our fellow citizens who, without it, would be at a serious disadvantage at their trials. The country has indeed moved a long way since the days before the Prisoners' Counsel Act, 1836, when a person charged with felony was not entitled to be legally represented, let alone to receive financial help towards his defence, and could not even give evidence on his own behalf. There followed the custom of the dock brief and I have no doubt that the more senior members of the Bar who may be present may have had their first experience of advocacy thanks to the introduction of the dock brief system.
The statutory provision for legal aid was first made by the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1903. Ever since there have been progressive advances towards making proper and adequate provision of legal aid available wherever it is needed. The achievement of that has not yet been accomplished and the purpose of this Clause is to move us more closely towards that end. Hon and right hon. Members may have been struck in reading the report of the Widgery Committee on Legal Aid in Criminal Proceedings, which is the foundation of new Clause 7,


to see that in paragraph 150 the Committee stressed the view that it was strongly inclined to propose that, subject to means, all prisoners committed for trial or sentence should be statuitorily entitled to the grant of a defence certificate.
The Committee did not go so far as that in its recommendations and it fell short of recommending that legal aid should be a statutory right for two reasons. The first reason was that in exceptional cases legal aid would not be necessary and, secondly, that a refusal to grant legal aid might give a right of appeal against conviction or sentence. We on this side do not accept the second reason as necessarily conclusive for refraining from giving a statutory right to legal aid. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), who has been responsible for the drafting of this Clause, and to whom I am indebted, as I am sure is the House, for the drafting not only of this Clause but of the earlier Amendments which the House and the Committee has had to consider, has taken account of paragraph 150 in drafting subsection (6), which it is proposed to add to Section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967.
The House will see that the proposed Clause and the proposed subsection impose on the court a statutory duty in the cases within the Widgery criteria simply to ascertain whether the defendant wishes to be represented and if so, to require the court to consider the granting of legal aid and, if the court refuses to grant legal aid, to require the court to state its reasons for that refusal. This seems to get round the objections and difficulties that the Committee found in an all-out statutory right to the grant of a defence certificate. In the application of the language of the Clause there will be no appeal against conviction or sentence on the grounds of the refusal of legal aid, although if legal aid were refused in a case which justified it, the Court of Appeal would no doubt give due weight to that factor on appeal. The new Clause is a practicable and moderate Clause and accordingly I hope that when the Minister replies he will accept it.
The new Clause imposes certain obligations on a court having to decide whether legal aid will be appropriate.

The first requirement placed upon the court is that it should ascertain whether a defendant desires to be represented. We had a considerable discussion on this in Committee, when we were indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) for a most learned and valuable speech on this subject. It became clear from the facts which emerged in Committee that even now most defendants in magistrates' courts do not apply for legal aid, even though a majority of them may be in serious trouble.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, in 1970 there were 226,746 indictable cases tried summarily of persons of 17 years or over. That is the most serious category of cases tried by magistrates' courts. In that quarter of a million indictable cases, only 75,669 were the subject of a grant of legal aid. In 8,645 cases legal aid was refused. It would, therefore, seem that in the most serious cases tried in that year by the magistrates, over 70 per cent, of defendants who were gravely imperilled did not even apply for legal aid.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The right hon. and learned Gentleman says "gravely imperilled". Would he like to give an assessment of how many of those people were gravely imperilled?

Sir Elwyn Jones: They were all subject to charges on indictable offences. To distinguish between the degree of peril in one indictable case and another is not an easy matter. They were all in danger of losing their liberty, their reputation and their jobs. I am surprised that the Minister should make that point. It is a discouraging start to our discussion.

Sir Gilbert Longden: I am surprised that the shadow Minister should make that sort of point.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to me. The indictable cases that come before the magistrates' courts involve the risk not only of loss of liberty but of loss of reputation.
From the figures, it seems that a large proportion of those who appear in magistrates' courts in serious cases do not even


apply for legal aid. If the statistics which the hon. and learned Gentleman can produce question that, he has the information of the Home Office behind him and I shall naturally be willing to stand corrected.
What is disappointing and disturbing about the present state of affairs in the magistrates' courts is the extraordinary discrepancy between one court and another. The rates of refusal of applications for legal aid have ranged from as little as 10 per cent. to as much as 90 per cent. in comparable courts. Although in some cases the types of case being tried in different courts may explain the discrepancies, it is hard to see how they explain the extraordinary differences between refusal rates in a court in Woolwich as opposed to a court in Hampstead. It is hard to appreciate why there is a higher degree of refusal in Birmingham, Liverpool and Bootle than in Manchester.
I thought there was some force in the view of the Law Society that the evidence showed that the refusal of legal aid was too consistent and repetitive to avoid the conclusion that there was a policy tending to fetter a discretion vested in the magistrates. Perhaps the Minister may be able to throw some light on that situation.
In our view, the position should improve if as a result of embodying subsection (6) in the Bill magistrates were required, first, to find out whether an unrepresented defendant in a case coming within the Widgery criteria desires to be legally represented; secondly, if so, to consider whether legal aid should be granted to him; and thirdly, if the court decides not to make a legal aid order in his favour, to state its reasons.
On the first requirement, although the Widgery Committee recommended that all defendants in the High Court should be asked whether they wanted legal aid, the Widgery Committee did not make a recommendation in regard to magistrates' courts. We feel that it should be a requirement. We feel that if magistrates had to give reasons for refusing legal aid—and a defendant is entitled to know the reasons, especially if he has no right of appeal—a requirement to give reasons for refusal would help to diminish the discrepancies since there would be an explanation. Far more important, such a requirement would direct and concentrate the minds of the magistrates' courts

on why they should refuse legal aid. We think it much more likely that if the requirement to give reasons were made a statutory duty, this would mean that the criteria recommended by the Widgery Committee as the test on the basis of which legal aid should be granted would be complied with.
The proposed new subsection (7) seeks to ensure that the steps required to be taken under subsection 6 should be followed in Crown Courts. Lest my tone should be taken to be one of unqualified criticism, I must acknowledge that great progress has been made in extending legal aid in the higher courts. The position is now so satisfactory there that it has become almost automatic to seek legal aid—and, what is more important, it is generally granted. Indeed, it is rare in the higher courts for a defendant in these days to be unrepresented. A real measure of progress has been made there which we on this side of the House gladly acknowledge.

10.30 p.m.

The proposals in the new subsection (7) embody the recommendations which are to be found in paragraphs 143 and 147 of the Widgery Committee's Report. They clearly and unequivocally support that which we set out in the new subsection. Paragraph 143 says:
In our view, trials on indictment clearly fall into the category of cases where we would expect an accused person whose means are insufficient to pay for his own defence to be granted legal aid as a matter of course. These cases satisfy the criteria discussed in paragraphs 168–180 below, which in our opinion should govern the grant of legal aid. They are mostly trials for serious crime, the prosecution is invariably legally represented, and the consequences for the accused can be grave.
On committals for sentence, paragraph 147 says:
We do not think that a valid distinction can be made between persons committed for trial and persons committed for sentence under sections 28 and 29 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952. Even where the committing magistrates have made a recommendation for Borstal training it is the duty of the higher court to consider the case de novo and it is desirable that anything which can be said on the prisoner's behalf should be said effectively.
There is that clear foundation for what is proposed in the new subsection (7).

In the new subsection (8) we propose that the procedures to be carried out as a statutory duly by the court in accordance with what is set out in subsection (6)


should apply to all preliminary hearings with regard to offences triable only on indictment, and that is covered in subsection (8)(a). As to the remaining proposals in the new subsection (8)(b), examination of the relevant paragraphs in the Widgery Report will show that our proposals correspond with the object and the substance of the Widgery recommendations, with only very slight amplification.

If the House examines paragraph 180 of the Widgery Report, it will be seen that the proposed new subsection (8)(b)(i) corresponds with the first of the tests of eligibility for legal aid in magistrates courts, namely,
That the charge is a grave one in the sense that the accused is in real jeopardy of losing his liberty or livelihood or suffering serious damage to his reputation.
Sub-paragraph (ii) corresponds in substance with the second of the Widgery criteria, that the charge raises a substantial question of law, save that our draft amplifies that proposal to include analogous cases.

Then the third of the criteria, that the accused is unable to follow the proceedings and to state his own case because of his inadequate knowledge of English, mental illness or other mental or physical disability, is the substance of the new sub-paragraph (iii), made somewhat more general, but adhering to the purposes and proposals of the Widgery Committee.

Then we move to sub-paragraph (iv). That produces the substance and includes analogous cases of the fourth recommendation, that the nature of the defence involves the tracing and interviewing of witnesses or expert cross-examination of a witness for the prosecution. It is extended in a way in the draft which, I submit, is practicable and reasonable and deals with situations which frequently arise.

As to the last of the criteria recommended by the Widgery Committee, that legal representation is desirable in the interests of someone other than the accused, as, for example, in the case of sexual offences against young children when it is undesirable that the accused should cross-examine the witness in person, that again is substantially reproduced in sub-paragraph (v), with the addition of the words which we think are necessary

without prejudice to the interests of the accused person 
because clearly the interests of the accused person must be overriding.

Then there has been added a new subsection (9) in regard to a possible revocation of a legal aid order, because it is our view that the same principles should apply to the revocation of the grant of legal aid as to the original granting of it.

I am afraid that this has been a somewhat technical, though I cannot claim invigorating, review of the scope of the new Clause, but we attach great importance to it. There is a feeling that, certainly in many cases in magistrates' courts, accused persons are suffering considerable disadvantage through the lack of legal aid facilities for them. The purpose of the Clause is to make what may well be a final step forward in covering the scope of matters which are appropriate for legal aid.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington): Is it not the case that at present courts are able to take all those matters into the scope of their consideration whether to grant legal aid? What will be the effect of the new Clause? Will it merely draw the attention of the court to what Parliament considers to be the desirability of making sure that the defendant knows of his rights under legal aid?

Sir Elwyn Jones: Of course courts can take all these matters into account, and many do—the fact that some do no doubt accounts for the low percentage of refusals in applications for legal aid—but it is equally clear that a considerable number of courts do not. The whole purpose of the Clause is to make it a statutory duty on the court to apply, and concentrate its mind on, the existence of the Widgery criteria and to make it, within the limits that we point out in subsection (6), apply those criteria and to grant legal aid in these cases.
Unfortunately, up and down the country this just is not being done. I regret to say that I do not appear as frequently in magistrates' courts now as I used to do, and it may well be that some of the members of both branches of the profession who are present in the Chamber will confirm what I have said—that there is a notorious failure in some areas and in some courts to apply the Widgery criteria. This is Parliament's chance


to tell the courts what their duty is and what the procedure ought to be.

Mr. Ernie Money: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it goes a little further than that in that the ordinary defendant is very often not told of the reason why he is either granted or refused legal aid?

Sir Elwyn Jones: I entirely agree. The appalling phenomenon is that many who come before the courts have not the faintest idea that they have the right even to apply for legal aid. That is why we have made the requirement upon the court that the court should go through the three stages. There is nothing particularly revolutionary in asking a defendant, "Do you want legal aid?" At least that gives him the opportunity of knowing that he has the right.
At present there are attempts in the prisons, by prison notices and so on, to draw attention to the right. Unfortunately, it is very much unfamiliar ground, certainly for first offenders, and it is they who ought to be most assisted.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Would my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that the advantage of the proposed provision in substituting a mandatory requirement for a permissive situation, as exists at present, would be to enable a person who had been denied the rights envisaged under the Clause to seek a remedy in the Divisional Court?

Sir Elwyn Jones: I am not sure how far our proposal would go on that road, because we have drawn the line at an absolute right to legal aid as a statutory privilege. But I suppose that in a given case on appeal, in a clear case in which legal aid had been refused, that would be a circumstance; but it would have to be combined with others which would lead the Court of Appeal to take a more sympathetic view of a complainant's case. I should rather like to have notice of my hon. Friend's question whether what the Clause proposes would give any particular right of complaint in the Divisional Court for the mere failure to grant legal aid in the magistrates' court. Perhaps my hon. Friend was not pushing me as far as that.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I was not pushing my right hon. and learned Friend as far

as that. I was merely saying that if the court failed to apply the provisions of subsection (6), there being a duty imposed upon the court to ascertain in certain circumstances, would there not be a remedy available to a person who had been refused the benefit of them?

Sir Elwyn Jones: If what is proposed in the Clause became the law and there was a failure to ask a defendant whether he wanted legal aid, I think that that might be so. I was not following my hon. Friend's argument as limiting itself to that particular point. But if that became the law, it would become a statutory duty on the magistrates' court, clearly, to ascertain whether a defendant wanted legal aid. I suppose that if that procedure were not followed in a given case it could be a ground for stating a case. I do not want to be pushed into any final view on that matter. But at the very least, it would impose a clear duty, and that might be the consequence of it. I ought not to try to run away from the fact that that might be the result, and I do not suppose that it would be a bad thing. It would impose the duty to ask the question which at present is not a duty.

10.45 p.m.

Therefore, we on this side believe that this is a matter which is urgently needed, and it has been commended by a number of distinguished bodies which have investigated the position. There has been a Justice Committee report recommending matters on these lines. There has been a good deal of learning.

In Committee the Minister of State was inclined to say, "We will issue another Home Office circular on the matter". We do not think that that is enough. We believe that in a considerable number of cases, in a considerable number of magistrates' courts, there is non-compliance with the Widgery criteria and that the failure to comply is resulting in a serious denial of justice to our fellow citizens, many of whom are appearing before the court for the first time.

Accordingly, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to tell the House, either that the Government accept the Clause or that they have some practical proposals to ensure that what we have in mind is brought about by some method, administrative or otherwise. We


do not see that anything less than a clear message from Parliament embodied in a Statute imposing statutory duties will do to remedy the last serious omission in the admirable structure of legal aid.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I welcome the fact that, as I think, and as I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) eventually accepted, a duty would be imposed on the courts, if the Clause were to be accepted, to carry out a certain procedure in ascertaining whether a person was entitled to apply for legal aid and that, if the court did not follow that procedure, a remedy would lie in the Divisional Court. That can only be an advantage.
The criteria laid down by the 1967 Act were too vague. The whole experience since the operation of that Act indicates that that conclusion is correct. It is provided that if an applicant's means appear to be
such that he requires assistance in meeting the costs
of his defence a legal aid order shall be made where he is committed for trial on a charge of murder or there is an appeal by the prosecution from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords.
In all other cases the situation is purely permissive; that is, the court may make an order where it appears to the court that it is desirable so to do in the interests of justice and subject to the same proviso as to means.
It is abundantly plain that, because the criteria set out in the 1967 Act are too vague, there is a need for the position to be explicitly stated in the law as set out in the Widgery proposals. This is not simply a criticism which I or my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South make; it is a criticism which is made by Master Graham Green in "Criminal Costs and Legal Aid" second edition, at page 48, where he wrote:
The discretion given by the 1967 Act, unlike that relating to the award of costs, is not completely unfettered with no presumption one way or the other. The effect of Section 75, when the two conditions of 'desirability and the interests of justice' or 'need for assistance in meeting the costs of proceedings' have been fulfilled, is that the section of the Act conferring the power should be regarded as mandatory and not merely permissive. It is no answer

for a court to say that the prisoner has not asked for legal aid, since it is the duty of the court to make sure that the prisoner has every assistance.
The position is that legal aid is still a privilege to be granted in the discretion of the court. There is no right to legal aid. This has to be viewed also that in the light of the Act, there is no right of appeal against the refusal of legal aid.
Therefore, if we get, as often happens—I speak here as a practising advocate who has seen this—an inarticulate, confused and perhaps slow-witted accused person who does not comprehend the proceedings or know what is going on, there is no obligation on the part of the court to offer legal aid. That is quite wrong.
In previous debates the Minister of State has said complacently that there is no real need to worry because the courts understand, recognise and apply the Widgery criteria. The Minister of State speaks in general terms about that. However, the statistics which are available do not seem to suggest that he is correct in that assertion, as I will seek to demonstrate in a moment. What the Minister of State has shown, and he is perfectly entitled to do so, is that the volume of legal aid which has been granted has grown over the years. That is a perfectly justified conclusion. It is also perfectly true that legal aid for trials in crown courts is almost invariably granted. Nevertheless, he seems to skate over the anomalies which have arisen and to which my right hon. and learned Friend has drawn attention.
This is a matter which we have debated on a number of occasions. Some courts understand, recognise and apply the Widgery criteria, but there are many which do not do so. Some courts make policy decisions about legal aid, for example that legal aid should not be granted in certain drugs or shoplifting cases. One has only to appear at Great Marlborough Street to see that the vast majority of people who appear there on shoplifting charges are not represented. The court never thinks of saying to these people, many of them who are foreigners needing the assistance of an interpreter, "Do you require legal aid? Do you wish to be granted legal aid?" That is a suggestion which I have never heard made


by any of the magistrates sitting at Marl-borough Street when I have appeared there.
It is true that most of these people do not receive custodial treatment, but they are substantially fined. A conviction can be of the gravest moment to these people. It is not simply a question of whether somebody will receive custodial treatment. A conviction may be a sufficient reason for causing a person to be fearful of the later consequences regarding job opportunities, travelling abroad and perhaps living abroad.
There are too many courts which refuse legal aid in cases involving the Public Order Act, demonstrations or matters of that kind simply because there is sometimes expressed something of a political motive which the courts do not happen to like.
That there is a policy decision at Marl-borough Street is beyond any shadow of a doubt. I have already referred to the shoplifting case, and I referred in a debate on 4th December, 1970, to a letter which a client of mine received relating to a case concerning the theft of Giro cheques. It was a serious charge. The letter, which I had my client's permission at the time to quote, says that the magistrate had directed the clerk of the court to say
that on the charges at present before the court he is not disposed to grant legal aid. If other charges are added and your client consents to summary trial and pleads not guilty, it is possible that he will reconsider the application.
I said at the time that in my view that was a wrongful exercise of the discretion because it was a serious charge which certainly merited legal aid. Fortunately for that accused person the police did not offer any evidence against him. I suppose, in retrospect, one could say that the magistrate might be justified on that ground. However, he was not to know that. The fact remains that this was a serious charge of theft, and that refusal indicates why the situation at Marlborough Street has been appalling for so long.
Some courts act simply on whim—the dislike by a magistrate of a particular defendant who happens to be appearing before him. I have first-hand experience of this happening at Old Street. I referred to Old Street in the debate last week. I have also seen it happen in other courts.

Some magistrates detest the whole concept of legal aid and are over-zealous about the protection, they say, of public funds. They have a great degree of responsibility apparently for the public purse, but sometimes very little for ensuring that justice is done.

Mr. Carlisle: Nonsense. I have sat and listened to the hon. Gentleman attacking various stipendiary magistrates either by name or the courts in which they sit. Is he seriously repeating that magistrates who sit in London are not concerned with the justice of the cases before them? On reflection, as a solicitor, the hon. Gentleman may think that that is a wholly unfair slur on those before whom he appears.

Mr. Davis: I assert categorically that in one case, to which I referred last week, the expression of view by a particular magistrate, that he was there to protect the public purse, seemed to me to override the necessity for ensuring that justice was done.

Mr. Carlisle: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Davis: Indeed it is. I have no reason to retract that expression of opinion. This is not the view of the majority of magistrates. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to assert that all stipendiary magistrates carry out their duties admirably without any reservation at all, he is burying his head in the sand. There are good and bad magistrates and stipendiary magistrates. It is folly and totally idle to pretend that that is not the situation. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is anxious to protect all magistrates and stipendiary magistrates, but this is not our duty. It is true that I appear before many of these courts as an advocate, and I have to be careful about what I say. Nevertheless, the mere fact I do this is no reason for seeking to hide what I believe to be the truth.

Mr. Antony Buck: Has not the hon. Gentleman to watch it a bit? Of course he is right that there are good and less good stipendiary magistrates. However, is it not a little unfair, as it appears to me, to single out one in a definable way? We would all accept the hon. Gentleman's general proposition, but it is a little unfortunate. Does he agree that he is trying to single out individual


judges under the guise of parliamentary privilege? Is it not a pity to do that?

Mr. Davis: I would not have done it had I not thought that I was justified. It must be remembered that magistrates operate under the guise of absolute privilege and that they have that protection, too. When appearing before one stipendiary magistrate, I have heard observations made under the cloak of absolute privilege which I have not thought to be justified.
Other magistrates apply too narrow criteria. There may be abuse of legal aid because some people may get it who do not deserve it. But if there is any doubt, the benefit of the doubt should be resolved in favour of the accused in this respect, as on the question of conviction.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Money: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a particular problem is the minor defendant who may or may not be well known to a court who tends, simply because he has been a persistent offender, to be committed to a crown court under the Section 29 procedure? He ends up without legal aid and probably without having had his rights explained to him, and he is given counsel at the last moment at the crown court, with the result that his case is not properly presented there.

Mr. Davis: That is a genuine risk. The dock brief system is not very good. It does not do justice to the accused, as most members of the Bar who have had experience of it would agree. The hon. Gentleman seems to be sceptical about that, but the accused unfortunately is the guinea pig. It is not a very sensible system.
Legal aid should be granted on pleas of guilty in serious cases. That is not only my view but the view of the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker, who said about cases at what are now called crown courts that even in guilty pleas it was rare that it was not in the interests of justice for legal aid to be granted. If that is true in crown court cases, is it not equally true in cases at magistrates courts?

Mr. Peter Archer: Surely the contrary would be unarguable. It is not merely a matter of ensuring that adequate mitigation is

made. Often the accused does not know whether to plead guilty unless he has adequate legal aid.

Mr. Davis: I entirely agree. I invariably agree with my hon. and learned Friend and I see no reason for not following my normal practice on this occasion.
The available data, which admittedly are unsatisfactory largely because inadequate research has been done by the Home Office, shows that there is no basis for complacency about legal aid. Mr. Michael Zander undertook some research recently which indicated that a high proportion of those who were given suspended sentences in magistrates courts were unrepresented. The figures are interesting. Of those who had sentences of over three but under six months, 74 per cent, were unrepresented; of those who received sentences of over six but under 12 months 73 per cent, were unrepresented; and of those who had sentences of over 12 months 66 per cent, were unrepresented. I would refer to those who were given actual terms of imprisonment; of those who were given sentences of three but under six months 80 per cent, were unrepresented and of those who were given sentences of over six months but under 12 months 53 per cent, were unrepresented.
Mr. Zander drew the conclusion that, according to the latest criminal statistics, magistrates in 1968 sentenced 16,558 people to terms of imprisonment, without the option to pay a fine. They sent 6,556 people to detention centres, and they gave 26,205 people suspended sentences. He said that the study was not set up in a way that made it possible to claim that its results were representative of the position in the whole country, but if the results are approximately valid for the country as a whole they mean that more than 5,000 unrepresented defendants a year are being sent to detention centres, more than 15,000 are being given suspended sentences and more than 8,000 are being sent to prison. In addition there are tens of thousands who are being fined more than £50, and thousands who are being disqualified from driving and fined without the benefit of legal representation. Perhaps the Minister of State will say that the survey carried out by Mr. Zander and his staff was inadequate and did not cover a sufficiency of courts. But there is a burden on the


hon. and learned Gentleman to show that the conclusions of the survey are wrong.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South was right to draw attention to the alarming disparities that exist in the way in which courts administer legal aid in cases dealt with summarily. This was revealed in our previous debates on the subject. He referred to the situation at Bootle, where in 1969–70 there were 65 applications for legal aid and 61 were refused. There were appalling statistics in Birkenhead where 44 percent. of applications were refused, Torbay 33 per cent., Blackburn 45 per cent., Blackpool 70 per cent., and over 50 per cent, in Liverpool. In Manchester the figure was quite different. There were 2,419 applications for legal aid and only 140 were refused. In Newcastle-upon-Tyne over 50 per cent. were refused. Oxford, Birmingham, and Swansea refused similar percentages. At Marlborough Street over 68 per cent. were refused.
This all shows that legal aid is something of a lottery. Yet we have been told by the Minister of State that on the whole it is working well but that if it was working well—which is denied—then other things must be causing the trouble. That is rather like the defendant's classic plea in a civil case. First he did not do it, but if he did it, then it was justified, and if it were not justified, then no harm was done.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Chief Magistrate in London had convened a meeting and that this had indicated that the situation would be improved. We were told about the inquiry now going on into the magistrates' courts. He said that different cases were dealt with by different courts in different ways. But the statement does not stand up because Marlborough Street and Bow Street deal with very similar cases and Marlborough Street has a bad record and Bow Street has a very good one. A long period has passed since we debated these statistics. What is the up-to-date situation? Has there been any improvement? Has there been a sudden change at Marlborough Street or Willesden? Has there been a change of policy and a change of heart at these courts?
The new Clause has decided advantages. It imposes upon the court a duty to ask the accused whether he wants to

be represented in certain circumstances which are specified. This is most important and the statistics show why. If legal aid were refused or revoked, the court would be required to give the grounds. We should then know why and be able to build up a useful store of knowledge about the ways in which the courts operate legal aid. It would encourage greater uniformity, erase many of the disparities which occur and, above all, it would put specific criteria into the law which for a long time I have thought to be essential.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: I find myself in principle in complete agreement with the remarks of hon. Members opposite. One of the real problems of legal aid is that it is something of a lottery, as has been said. We are reaching a situation in which legal aid should be treated almost on the same basis as the Health Service. It is an unattractive situation for a person involved in an accident who ends up in hospital, and it is an equally unattractive situation for a person who, perhaps through no fault of his own, suddenly finds himself in a criminal court, which is completely new to him. In those circumstances, he is entitled to assistance.
What has struck me about legal aid in recent years is the utter unfairness of it. I even go so far as to say—it might be thought that I was speaking for the Opposition benches—that it is unfair that a man with savings, who has worked hard all his life, should have to pay a large contribution from his savings towards his defence if he is accused of a criminal offence.
I am in a legally-aided case now at the Central Criminal Court, and it is in its 44th day. My client has been in custody for rather a long time, and is not in a position to make a contribution. I should think that costs will be fairly high. If he had big savings, he would be required to contribute from them towards the costs of a 44-day case.
If we are to get the system on to a sensible basis, everybody should be entitled as of right, from the very outset, to legal aid. I do not like to see people having to make a contribution. I know that what I have said will not be popular on either side, but I say it for the following reason. We are very proud of our system of justice. I think the whole coun-


try is rightly proud of it, as we are proud of our education arrangements. In those circumstances, I do not see why the country should not contribute towards it. The amount of money spent on our system of justice, of which we are so justly proud, is infinitesimal compared with what is spent on other social services.
To put it bluntly, if the country is proud of that system of justice, it must pay for it. It does not cost the public a great deal of money. It will be said that the money will be going into the pockets of the solicitors, such as the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), and may even on odd occasions get as far as the Bar, but that does not always happen. Never mind. If it does a great deal of it of necessity must go back to the Revenue and back into the public purse. Therefore, the cost is not quite as great as is generally thought.

Mr. Peter Archer: Is it not about time that someone said in the House that the mere fact that a proposal benefits the lawyers is not necessarily a conclusive argument against it

Mr. Crowder: I accept that. I think there is a tremendous feeling of unfairness when one person is granted legal aid and another is not. It is rather unhappy that the situation should be different in one magistrates' court from another. Several courts have been mentioned, and I hope the point will be taken in them.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I am not sure whether my hon. and learned Friend was suggesting that the applicant should make no contribution, whatever his means. If he was, I could not find myself in agreement.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Crowder: I think I do suggest it, for the reason that I do not see why, when a man has worked hard all his life but, possibly in a case of mistaken identity or something of that sort, finds himself before a court, he should have to draw on his savings which he has acquired through hard work, while another man with no means or savings gets his defence for nothing.
Let us look at it from the judicial point of view, of what was the quarter sessions and is now the crown court.

When the quarter sessions existed not long ago—and I speak from personal experience—countless cases came to the quarter sessions on appeal where the appellant concerned had not had legal aid at the magistrates' court. The result was that his case had never been properly gone into and properly represented and time and again, when I was chairman of Quarter Sessions, we found ourselves allowing appeals for that reason. Not until the cases had come to sessions and legal aid had been granted had the whole thing been sorted out and were we able to realise the true extent of the case. A great deal of public money was wasted because legal aid was not granted in the first instance.
Everyone who has the responsibility, as some of us in the House do, of sitting at these various courts as temporary circuit judges or temporary recorders knows that it is of the greatest assistance if solicitors and counsel have been able to go into the matter and there is a plea of guilty with mitigating or extenuating circumstances which would not otherwise have been brought to court. We should not be tight-fisted about this.

Mr. David Weitzman: May I first make as strong a protest as I can against the arrangement of Government business in such a way that vital matters on this Bill are not given proper time. I was present last week and again today and I hoped to make a small contribution but was prevented from doing so by the disgraceful way Government business is organised.
Having got that off my chest, and I hope it will be appreciated by the Minister, I want to add a few words in support of the new Clause.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) referred to the days of the dock briefs and I cast my mind back 20 years to when I was leading in a murder case when legal aid did not exist. We had five days in the Central Criminal Court; a second trial when the jury disagreed after five days; three days in the Court of Criminal Appeal, as it then was; and five days in the House of Lords, and the layman may notice that for all that work, proceeding in the House of Lords in forma pauperis. the sum paid was under 100 guineas for the whole period.
In those days it was an honour to take an important case like a murder case, but one could not get counsel for many other important cases because it could not be done on the amount of money which was paid—one or two guineas. We have moved a long way since then but obviously legal aid is today of tremendous assistance to defendants. There is no doubt about that.
The Minister may say, "Here are statistics which show that legal aid is granted in many cases. Here are many magistrates where courts are willing to give legal aid." But the fact remains that there are many cases where different standards are adopted. Very often, legal aid is granted in a simple case, and easily, without the defendant requesting it; in other cases, there is the greatest difficulty, when the magistrates will not respond in the way they should.
New Clause 7 is extremely important because it sets out succinctly the ground upon which legal aid should be granted in certain cases. It is not as if it says that legal aid ought always to be granted. No-one has suggested that. It does not say that legal aid should be granted in those circumstances where the person is represented by counsel or a solicitor, because in proposed subsection (6) are the clear words:
…in the case of any person brought before it who is not represented by counsel or a solicitor…".
We are dealing merely with cases in which the defendant is unrepresented in the courts.
On Second Reading, I suggested that we should follow the procedure in the Scottish courts in that there should be a duty solicitor to advise defendants. Surely in a case where the defendant is not represented by counsel or a solicitor, and where any of the conditions arise that are set out in new Clause 7(7) and (8), it should be the duty not to grant legal aid but to communicate to the person the fact that he can get it, and if he so desires it the magistrate can,
…consider whether legal aid ought to be granted to him…
What possible objection can there be to that? Is the objection going to be that we cannot afford the money? That would be absurd.
The other objection which has been posed is contained in the question "What

does new Clause 7 add to the existing procedure?" First, it adds the fact that an obligation would be put upon the magistrate where the person was not represented to make clear to him that he had the right to apply for legal aid. That in itself might be sufficient reason for the new Clause. But apart from that it sets out clearly certain circumstances in which that should be done. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at all the points set out in the proposed subsection (8) (a) (b) and (c). Subsection 8 (a) says:
all preliminary hearings in respect of offences triable only on indictment;
Why should not a magistrate in such case say to the defendant, "Do you want legal aid?" And why should the magistrate not consider whether it is a proper case for legal aid? Subsection (8) (b)(i) refers to where it appears
that the nature of the offence alleged is such that the accused person may be in danger of losing his liberty or that his livelihood may me imperilled or that his reputation may be seriously damaged;
Is it suggested that that is not a proper case in which legal aid should be considered and the fact communicated to the defendant?

Mr. Carlisle: Mr. Carlisle indicated dissent.

Mr. Weitzman: The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. I cannot understand his logic. If he means by shaking his head that he is not in agreement, I cannot understand him.
Subsection (8) (b)(ii) says:
that the matter alleged against the accused person or likely to be raised in his defence or in the defence of any other person which may affect his defence are likely to raise a substantial question of law;
Surely in such a case the proper course is for the magistrate to say to the defendant, "Do you want legal aid?" and then consider whether it should be granted.
I do not want to weary the House with statistics. The hour is late, and the Government make it impossible for us to discuss these matters in the detail in which they should be considered. This is a Clause which should be adopted willingly by the Minister, and I hope the Minister will give it the approval it should have.

Mr. Carlisle: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington


and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) made those comments about the discussion on this issue. As will be borne out by those hon. Members on both sides of the House who were on the Committee, we had a very full and frank discussion of the whole issue of legal aid during the passage of the Bill and within the last two years I have had to reply to various debates on this issue. It is not right, therefore, to suggest that this issue has not been adequately debated.

Mr. Weitzman: It is one thing to have a discussion in Committee where a limited number of hon. Members is present and another thing to have a discussion in the House where hon. Members who are not on the Committee can take part.

Mr. Carlisle: I commend the hon. and learned Gentleman to talk to his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) who has succeeded in raising it in the House on various occasions during the last two years. While I concede that this is an important issue, one cannot seriously say that there have not been many discussions of it in the last two years.
I will turn to the merits of the new Clause. The House should be quite clear what the new Clause proposes. Basically, what is suggested is that in all cases where a person is not represented by counsel or solicitor the court should consider whether legal aid ought to be granted, and if it decides not to make that order to state its reasons. It requires specifically the Crown court in criminal cases to consider the need for legal aid. It refers specifically to committal proceedings and then in general to summary proceedings in magistrates' courts. I do not disagree with the intention behind the new Clause, but I suggest that it is unnecessary and superfluous to put a provision of this kind in statutory form.
Subsection (7) provides that legal aid should be offered in all cases before the Crown courts. I do not dispute for one moment the desirability of representation of the individual defendant before the Crown court, but one must ask whether it is necessary to provide for this within the Statute. I point out to the House that in 1970 out of the 44,000 people who were tried on indictment before the Crown courts only 607 were unrepresented. Out

of that total, of 44,000, only 59 applications for legal aid were refused by the court.
In face of those figures, I do not see how it can be seriously suggested that there is a lacuna which needs to be closed by a legislative provision of this kind. Well over 98 per cent. of those who appeared before the Crown courts were represented. As I have said before, I can readily believe that if one were able to assess the individual cases in the 59 instances out of the 44,000 in which legal aid was refused, one would find that there were good grounds and the court was satisfied, having regard to the way in which it proposed to deal with them, that the granting of legal aid could not possibly assist the carrying out of justice.

11.30 p.m.

On the first part of the proposal, therefore, since 98·6 per cent. out of the 44,000 are already represented, there is not an argument for amending the statute.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The whole purpose of the new Clause is to set up the Widgery criteria in to to in legislative form. If one is doing that, it would be nonsense to omit reference to the Crown courts.

Mr. Carlisle: Yes, and I am coming to the other parts of the scheme. The Clause deals with the Crown courts, then with committals, and then with the magistrates' courts. I was simply pointing out, in view of some of the comments that had been made, how high is the proportion already represented in the Crown courts. I cannot believe that anyone would seriously suggest that the present arrangements for legal aid in the Crown courts are not working satisfactorily.
I come next in the excellent drafting—the work of the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), I suspect, though the Clause was moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—to proposals dealing with preliminary hearings in respect of offences triable only on indictment. I can give figures not for indictable offences but for committals as a whole. In 1970, out of 36,225 applications for legal aid on committals, 35,087, or 96·9 per cent., were granted by the court. Again I cannot believe that there is any need shown or anything in the working of the system in


this sector which could possibly be said to require at this moment a statutory provision of the kind proposed.
I come now to what I accept is the major point, the provision of legal aid in the magistrates' courts on summary trial.
I am not in a position at the moment to give the hon. Member for Hackney, Central any more up-to-date figures than I have given in the past. However, over recent years the figures for both the applications for and the grant of legal aid in magistrates courts in summary trials have been rising substantially. Out of 83,800 applications for legal aid in summary proceedings in 1970, 69,000 or 82·3 per cent. were granted. That compares with a granting rate of some 72 per cent. four years previously in 1966. Comparing the 1966 and the 1970 figures, the take-up of legal aid has increased fourfold and the expenditure on legal aid in magistrates courts has increase tenfold. Therefore I repeat what I have said in the House and in Committee that, on the whole, the legal aid provisions are working well and are known and administered by the courts.

Mr. Clinton Davis: But the hon. and learned Gentleman has not begun to deal with the disparities. Will he compare Marlborough Street with Bow Street, for example? This is not a situation which has emerged suddenly. It has existed for a number of years.

Mr. Carlisle: I had not begun to deal with the argument about disparities because, unitil now, I had not had a chance to do so.
I do not intend to go into detail on the disparities between courts. The hon. Gentleman and I have argued it on many occasions. I concede that there are disparities in the degree of granting of different courts in different parts of the country. The hon. Gentleman will give me credit for being consistent in saying that I have always accepted that, and I have suggested that there are various reasons why it is so. Equally, I point out that there are disparities within individual courts from year to year. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that only 6.2 per cent, of applications were granted at Bootle in 1969. It so happens that in 1970 the figure granted was 46.2 per cent. That confirms that even within the same court the percentage granted varies from year to year.
None of us disputes the criteria on which legal aid should be granted. If there is any agreement, it concerns my oft-stated comment that the figures of increased take-up are evidence that the courts appreciate the criteria on which they should be acting. But there is no difference about the criteria.
The criteria were laid down in 1966 by the Widgery Committee. The Departmental Committee on Legal Aid in Criminal Proceedings, chaired by the present Lord Chief Justice, then the honourable Mr. Justice Widgery, recommended in para 180 of its report the criteria on which legal aid should be granted. I wholly accept those criteria.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked why I interrupted him at an earlier stage. The criterion in the new Clause goes considerably wider than that proposed by the Widgery Committee. The main criterion laid down by the Widgery Committee was that legal aid should be granted where the charge was a grave one in the sense that the accused was in real jeopardy of losing his liberty. The point of the new Clause is that the person may be in danger of losing his liberty.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the cases in which someone was in grave jeopardy. He knows as well as I do that the offences for which imprisonment is a potential penalty vary enormously in degree. The criterion laid down by the Widgery Committee that someone should be in real jeopardy is the right one, and it is that about which courts should be asked to satisfy themselves.

Sir Elwyn Jones: The criterion in question is not confined to loss of liberty. It is "in jeopardy of losing his liberty or livelihood or suffering serious damage to his reputation". I was a little dismayed at the beginning of the debate at what appeared to be the hon. and learned Gentleman's reaction when I was endeavouring to point out that about two-thirds of those tried in magistrates' courts on indictable offences are not legally aided and do not even apply for legal aid. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be taking the view that the absence of an application for legal aid was the result of a considered judgment on the part of those concerned, whereas we think that it is on the basis of a pure lack of knowledge of the rights available to the person concerned.

Mr. Carlisle: I still do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comment is correct. As I understood it, he gave the full figures of those tried summarily on indictable offences and said that therefore they were in great jeopardy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a far more experienced and able lawyer than I am. He knows that every form of theft, however minor, ranks as an indictable offence. I was saying that one must look at the Widgery criterion for the granting of legal aid, namely, whether there is real jeopardy, rather than take the much wider criterion which the right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to be taking, which was to say that because there were 22,000 cases of indictable offences triable summarily, therefore legal aid should have been granted in all those cases.

Mr. Money: There is one category of person for whom legal aid is not available in any circumstances—I have raised this matter with my hon. and learned Friend before—and that is the person appearing before a disciplinary committee of visiting magistrates. Such an event can result in a substantial loss of liberty in the form of a substantial loss of remission.

Mr. Carlisle: If I were to answer that I think that I should, quite rightly, be ruled out of order, because I do not think that appearance before a disciplinary committee in prison is covered by the Clause. It deals only with the granting of legal aid in magistrates' and Crown Courts.
I cannot go all the way with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) in his view that everyone, irrespective of means or anything else, should automatically be entitled to legal aid. The provisions for granting legal aid and the contribution scheme brought in by the previous Government were right. We are talking only about the discretion in the granting of legal aid in the summary trial of cases in magistrates' courts. As I have said, those principles on which a court ought to act are well known to the courts and are being acted on.

11.45 p.m.

But, having said that, let me make it clear that the present Government accept

entirely the Widgery criteria and believe that those are the appropriate criteria that should be implemented. In view of the various comments that have been made and, if I may say so without being accused of being provocative at this hour, despite the fact that the Widgery criteria and the Widgery Report were introduced as long ago as 1966 and the then Government did nothing about them until 1970, as the present Government believe that the Widgery criteria are right, a Home Office circular recommending, among other things, observance of those criteria by the courts is in preparation. Subject to the necessary discussion and consultation with other Departments and with bodies such as the Magistrates Association and the Justices' Clerks Society, we are perfectly willing to circulate it to the courts recommending what we believe to be the right criteria on the basis of which legal aid should be granted.

This matter does not need the sledgehammer—if that is the word—of being turned into statutory provision. I believe that the departmental committee recommendations on legal aid were right. The right way is that the Government should now do what their predecessors failed to do, which is to recommend them by circular to the courts.

Mr. Clinton Davis: What a waste of time.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman says, "What a waste of time", but his party did precious little about recommending those criteria to the courts.

Mr. Davis: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlisle: No. The hon. Gentleman has urged upon me time and again that the appropriate thing to do would be to recommend those criteria to the courts. I have heard it from the hon. Gentleman's lips and from the Opposition benches on many occasions. I see no necessity to implement this in statutory form. Indeed, if I had to go into the details, I believe that subparagraph (b)(i) goes far wider in principle than anyone realistically would wish it to do.
The right thing is to ensure that the criteria, which we all believe are the appropriate criteria, should be carried out by the courts. In a matter which is within the judicial discretion of the courts,


the task of the Home Office is to recommend by circular those matters which it believes to be the wishes of Parliament as to the guidelines on which a court should act. That is the right way to proceed, rather than to carry out a statutory provision of this kind.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I hope that I have caught the Minister before he sits down. Would he explain this matter? I am not putting this question in any critical spirit but because the House would wish to know the answer. The Government have decided to give statutory effect—by way of an Amendment to which we shall come later—to the O'Keefe principle, which was laid down by a court of law. What is the distinction between what is a departmental report, and the advisability of putting that into statutory form, and that which is a principle enunciated by a court and the advisability of putting that into statutory form?

Mr. Carlisle: I feel rather like the man who is asked, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" I have, under great pressure, agreed to consider whether it would be appropriate to put into statutory form the principles of the judgement of the Court of Appeal in O'Keefe as to the circumstances in which suspended sentences should be passed. I pointed out in Committee that, although I was by no means certain that it was appropriate to put judgments of the Court of Appeal into statutory form, I was prepared to consider doing so. Having considered it, I have agreed—I hope with grace—to do so, and I am now doing it.
I having done that, the hon. and learned Gentleman asks—why do we not implement every departmental recommendation One must draw the line somewhere. I was satisfied by the argument adduced in Committee that it was right to amend Clause 10 so as to put into statutory form the provisions of O'Keefe. I do not think that it follows from that that we should be asked to put into statutory form the provisions of every departmental working party or the recommendations it makes. The normal procedure with regard to reports of departmental working parties is that, if the Government of the day support them, they are recommended to interested parties as guidelines for implementation. I believe that on reflection the hon. and

learned Gentleman will agree that that is the right way to proceed.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Despite what the Minister of State has said, many of us still have misgivings about the great disparity in the way legal aid is granted as between one court and another. It is not necessary to bandy about statistics, because anybody who has practised in magistrates' courts cannot fail to be impressed by the way in which some stipendiaries lean over backwards in their endeavours to grant legal aid on every occasion, while other magistrates seem totally indifferent.
One reason I am attracted to the Clause is that it would alert magistrates to their duty to inform accused that they have a right to legal aid. Many accused have no idea what legal aid means. They think that it means merely having somebody to represent them and their having to pay for it. Only last week I saw a defendant brought up in court. The magistrate, who goes out of his way to grant legal aid, asked the man if he wanted legal aid. The defendant replied, "No, because I cannot afford to pay for it". The man thought that he would have to pay a large sum of money to engage somebody to represent him.
I believe that magistrates have a duty, not only to ask every defendant who is not represented whether he wishes to be represented, but also to explain to him exactly what legal aid means. Some magistrates give the impression that certain cases are not of themselves deserving of legal aid. This is certainly true in the case of shoplifting. I will not refer to any particular court—I might have to appear there. A high proportion of those charged with shoplifting are foreign and of good character, but it is not explained to them that they are entitled to legal aid.
It may well be that in shoplifting cases a high proportion of accused persons are subsequently convicted and a high proportion of them have little defence. However, because they are the sort of people who generally are of good character, who have committed no previous offences, the mere fact of having a conviction against them is something that will haunt them and be held against them for the rest of their lives.
There should be a duty upon magistrates, when persons appear before them who are inarticulate, who cannot speak the language properly, to explain to them their rights and exactly what legal aid means.
I have little complaint about the practice in the crown courts. Most people agree that in the higher courts legal aid is invariably granted to anybody who has a reasonable right to it. However, there is a difference in the magistrates courts.
While this Clause deals with a narrow point, the mere fact of having it in a Statute that there is a duty upon the magistrates to explain to the accused what is his basic right will make the magistrate do so. Therefore, I hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept it.

Mr. Money: Mr. Money rose—

Dame Irene Ward: It is a lawyer's debate.

Mr. Money: No doubt my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to speak later.

Dame Irene Ward: It is about time.

Mr. Money: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being able to deal with her intervention in the way she would wish.
I echo what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder), that we are rightly proud of our legal aid system. However, we should remember at all times that it is a discretionary system.
There are three matters that we need to bear in mind. First, that the prosecution, particularly in magistrates courts, are almost invariably represented. Therefore, from the pure but old legal principle of justice being seen to be done as well as being done, it is only fair to say that often the prosecution act to the benefit of defendants as well as against them. It is important in such a situation that a defendant should be seen to be given the same sort of right as the Crown or a private prosecutor is claiming.
Secondly, it is desperately important that we should bear in mind that sending people to prison is an expensive fine on the State. Before we make a decision which will cost even now approximately

£25 a week purely for the custodial side of it, without the incurrence of the extra amounts paid out in supplementary benefits or loss of revenue which this involves, we should be in a position where a court dealing with a matter in possibly a short time should have every assistance to make up its mind whether it is necessary to send somebody to prison.
Thirdly, we are proud of the speed with which our courts act. It has been a criterion which has been put constantly before the courts, that it is a matter of the utmost importance that cases should be brought quickly to a decision. That is different from the situation which applies in many forms of continental jurisdiction, where a good deal of time and care is spent in going into the antecedents of an individual defendant. Nonetheless one thing we could ensure in those circumstances is a thorough investigation of the case by a legal adviser so that all those matters that should be brought before a court are brought before a court.
On the continent, particularly in Germany, a case may well take 12 months to bring to trial because of the preliminary investigations. Far too often matters which could be brought before a court quickly and clearly if a defendant were adequately represented, particularly in a court of summary jurisdiction, are not so dealt with, and what happens is that either he or she has to be remanded—often in custody—for further inquiries, or the burden is placed on the already overworked and underpaid probation service to make inquiries which could be made under legal aid in whatever type of case is involved.

12 midnight.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth feels that this is a lawyers' debate, but this is a matter with which many of us in the legal profession have to live every day. For that reason, I wholeheartedly welcome that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State intends to recommend to the courts, in the form of a Government circular, that the Widgery criteria should be accepted. This is something for which many of us have pressed in the House. It would therefore be less than generous if we did not say how pleased we are.

Taking the matter a step further, I hope that when the circular goes out—I


am sure that coming from my hon. and learned Friend's Department it will bear the greatest possible weight with the courts—it will be implemented by them. This is the nub of the matter. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that it is not necessary to apply statutory force when the matter can be effected through a circular of the kind which he has mentioned. However, I hope it will be made plain that not only the Government but the public will expect this recommendation to be enforced by the courts and not allowed to wither among so many other circulars and recommendations which come from less persuasive bodies on to the files of justices' clerks.

Mr. Edmund Dell: I shall speak briefly and purely in order to avoid writing another letter to the Minister of State. At the moment the hon. and learned Gentleman has so many letters from me he may prefer on this occasion to receive it across the Floor of the House.
I welcome that the hon. and learned Gentleman intends to commend the Widgery criteria to the courts. However, I should prefer the new Clause, because it is necessary to go wider.
The Minister will recall that "Justice", in its report
The unrepresented defendant in magistrates' courts",
indicated certain inadequacies in the Widgery criteria. Therefore, when drafting his circular perhaps he will bear in mind what "Justice" says. I wish to draw the Minister's attention particularly to one matter in this pamphlet which bears very much on the question of preparing the circular. The report, in paragraph 65, says:
By far the most difficult problem to solve is how to recognise the case that merits legal aid at the very early stages when representation is so important.
The question is how to recognise at the stage the court may have to recognise it if it is to grant legal aid, that the case it is considering falls within the Widgery criteria. I hope that when preparing the circular the hon. and learned Gentleman will not merely commend the criteria, but will assist the courts to get over the kind of difficulty which "Justice" pointed to in its report.
I now come to another point which follows what the hon. Member for

Ipswich (Mr. Money) said. Yesterday, as is my wont in preparation for the debate, I put two Questions down to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I wanted to know what he knew about the facts in two respects. First, I wanted to know what the hon. and learned Gentleman knew about the legal representation of people remanded in custody. I asked him, therefore, what recent study he had made, in reply to which he said that there had been no recent study.
Secondly, I asked
what recent study he has made of the proportion and number of men and women sentenced to imprisonment by magistrates' courts and higher courts separately, who were legally represented; and with what result?
He said that no recent study had been made because it was not thought appropriate to make a study of this question at a time when the grant of legal aid was increasing so rapidly. He went on to use this very curious sentence, about which I would have written to him:
Since, however, over three times as many defendants are granted legal aid in magistrates' courts as are sentenced to immediate imprisonment and nearly all defendants appearing before the Crown Court are represented, the proportion of unrepresented defendants sentenced to imprisonment is now likely to be very small".
The hon. and learned Gentleman may be right for all I know. What I do not know is how he can use that reasoning to justify it.
I received the reply rather late, no doubt due to administrative problems in the Home Office or Hansard, and therefore I have not been able to check the figures as thoroughly as I should like, but, as far as I can see, for some years the ratio of legal aid to persons sentenced to immediate imprisonment has been about three to one or more. One of those years was 1969, and yet we know from Mr. Zander's study that in that year quite a large proportion of people were sentenced to imprisonment without legal representation, despite the fact that the ratio upon which he relies existed.
That being so, there is quite inadequate reason for the hon. and learned Gentleman deciding that the time is not appropriate to make some inquiry so that he should have some facts on which to base further action. When we refer to old inquiries such as that made by Mr. Zander, we are told that they are old


inquiries. When we ask for a new inquiry, we are told that a new inquiry is not necessary because the grant of legal aid is advancing so rapidly.
Despite all that the hon. and learned Gentleman says, there may be a good deal less reason for satisfaction in this case than he thinks. I remind him about what seems to me to be one of the most interesting sentences in the Widgery Report. It appears in paragraph 181 on page 49—and I leave out the irrelevant words:
…we are not recommending any change in the existing general practice…".
Yet the hon. and learned Gentleman has said that since the date of this Report the grant of legal aid has increased four times. Lord Widgery, when he prepared his report, thought that his criteria were the general practice of the courts. They were not. It may be that the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he made inquiry into this question, would find that many people were being sentenced to imprisonment without legal aid despite the curious reasoning which he employed in his answer.

Dame Irene Ward: I was delighted to see the right hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), who I believe is not a lawyer, sitting on the Opposition Front Bench because for some time I thought that I was the only lay individual in the Chamber. Although I always enjoy listening to lawyers arguing, I began to wonder whether there was a female name for Daniel, because I felt like Daniel in the lions' den.
My experience over many years indicates that, in the main, magistrates' benches consist of very good men and women. Sometimes magistrates in the courts of summary jurisdiction are much more concerned with the human need to protect the offender and to get to the bottom of the case than those who have been brought in, as a result of legal aid, to represent the offender. Goodness and an interest in human beings is not the monopoly of one section of the community.
We have heard a one-sided argument from the lawyers about the need for legal aid. It is important in these matters to have good, sound human magistrates on the bench. Sometimes they must step

in where lawyers fail to conduct their cases properly. I have sat on a magisterial bench for a long time and I have known occasions on which I could have made a better job of the defence than the lawyer.
We have first-class lawyers in this country of whom we are extremely proud and to whom we are indebted. But among lawyers, as among other sections of the community, including Parliament, there is good and bad. The balance of the debate tonight, particularly from the Labour benches, has been towards the denigration of magistrates and the praising of lawyers. I do not object to lawyers because I have had lawyers in my own family but I do not like a debate which puts only one half of the story.
Some of the speeches tonight have been ridiculous, and that applies particularly to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis). He would do better to travel round the country and listen to some of the benches. He would see the care and the trouble they take and the human approach they adopt when offenders are brought before them. Our courts of summary jurisdiction as well as our Crown Courts have built up a wonderful reputation for our system of justice throughout the world.
I had not intended to take part in the debate until I heard how the Opposition have behaved, breaking the arrangement they made last week without warning. That was a deplorable thing to do.

Mr. Clinton Davis: What arrangement?

Dame Irene Ward: The arrangement made last week was that if we had a late debate tonight on a very full argument there would be no Divisions. The Opposition said they would be satisfied with the Clauses which were argued about last week. They broke their word.
I am grateful for the opportunity to pay my tribute to the magisterial benches after what was said by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central. He made a deplorable speech and it does not help the maintenance of good law if a lawyer who is anxious to get commissions make the kind of speech that he made.
We have good, bad and indifferent magistrates, just as we have good, bad and indifferent lawyers and Members of


Parliament. I wanted to see that we had a proper balance in the debate, and that it was not only the legal people that took part.
The Bill is of great importance to the country as a whole. It is not just a Bill for lawyers and magistrates; its object is to maintain a good, just and honourable system of law. The people of the country want a much stronger Bill on criminal justice than they are having even under my Government.
I am delighted that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has done what the lawyers seem to think is very good, and I wish him all luck. But I want to say something arising out of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money). Perhaps now my hon. and learned Friend will undertake that the probation service will no longer be treated as the Cinderella of social services. Quite recently the Committee on which I sit issued a report on the probation service. We did not feel that the Home Office was doing what it should to maintain, sustain and assist the service. It would be a good thing if my hon. and learned Friend would now say that he accepts in full the Committee's recommendations. It is time those in the probation services, which does so much to help the very people that all the lawyers are talking about, were properly paid and treated. I should be very glad if, as a result of my annoyance at hearing so much about the lawyers and so little about the other people in the country who help to maintain our system of justice, I learn that the probation service is to get its due.
With so many lawyers present, I am delighted to have had my say on this very important matter as a lay individual.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I am neither a lawyer nor a magistrate. I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) said, but I feel that if I tried to comment on her last remarks I should swiftly be ruled out of order.
I am not happy with the Minister's reply. The basic reason why I intervene is that I am very worried because more and more people are today pleading guilty to relatively minor offences, even

though they are convinced they are not guilty, because of the cost of pleading not guilty. On another occasion I should like to raise once again the important issue of the allocation of costs on acquittal. The question of legal aid here is also very important.
We all know that there are, as the hon. Lady said, good lawyers and less good lawyers, good magistrates and less good magistrates. What has become obvious is that there is quite a considerable variation between one magistrates' court and another—this is by no means so much the case in Crown Courts—in the granting of legal aid where particular offences are alleged. We sometimes have the impression that some courts have prejudices against particular offences when it comes to granting legal aid. The Minister of State will remember that he appeared on the Frost programme a few months ago when this was brought out dramatically, by various members of the audience.
The Minister said he will issue a circular to magistrates' courts, setting out roughly the Widgery proposals. I am not certain of the effect of a Home Office circular on magistrates nor to what extent they are bound to accept it or are free not to do so. I imagine that in most cases they will agree to accept the terms but there may be one or two cases in which they will pay slightly less attention to the Minister's circular.
I cannot see the objection to having the Widgery proposals enshrined in Statute. The Minister did not convince me on the objections. Why send a circular rather than putting it in the Statute?
My more important point is that the circular and the Widgery proposals do not cover the first part of the new Clause, the subsection which recommends that magistrates, in most circumstances, are to inquire, where a defendant is not represented, why not It is important. Someone appears before a magisrates court and is not defended. The magistrate should then not only have a right, but in most cases a duty, to ask, before proceeding with the case, "Why are you not defended?" The defendant may then say, "I cannot afford to be defended". If he says he does not want to be defended and wants to defend himself, that is his own


choice. However, if he does not understand what legal aid is about or did not think he was eligible for it, that is another matter. A number of people do not understand what legal aid is all about.
The cases where I find that courts are often reluctant to give legal aid are some motoring offences. I am not suggesting that all motoring offences should be legally aided. The type of case I have in mind in which it is often not granted is that of a chap who has committed three offences and under the totting up procedure may be disqualified from driving for a period. It may well be that there is a need in many such cases, particularly if a man earns his living by driving, for a plea of mitigation to be made.
I find it rare indeed in these cases in magistrates' courts for legal aid to be granted. Generally it is accepted that one does not give legal aid for lesser offences. The Minister of State will be aware of a case which has caused considerable concern in my area, about which I have written to him, in which a person was charged with possession of drugs and was refused legal aid.
I am told—and lawyers present will confirm or deny this—that many cases in respect of possession of drugs are detailed technical cases which need an experienced lawyer to defend them. In this case, there were two young lads. In the end one was represented because his father paid a considerable sum of money. But really his father could not afford it. The Minister of State said that it was not so serious after all because the lad was represented, but he was represented only because his father forked out a large sum of money. His father might have said that he would have nothing to do with it—there are such cases.
As it was, the other lad went through the magistrates' court procedure without legal aid but was granted it in the Crown Court. He was sent to Crown Court with a recommendation for borstal training, and I have not yet heard the final outcome. But this was a case in which it was obvious from the start that the boy stood to lose his liberty, and I cannot understand why he was not granted legal aid from the start.
I hope that the Home Office circular will have the necessary effect on magistrates but I cannot see the hon. and learned Gentleman's objection to writing it into the Bill. Is it because the magistrates or their clerks object to things being written into Statute form?

Dame Irene Ward: Nonsense.

Mr. Mitchell: I am asking whether that is the case. Do they prefer to have it in circular form? I find it the Minister's refusal to accept new Clause 7 or at least its principle as quite inexplicable. I hope that even at this stage he will reconsider his decision.

Mr. Stanbrook: I rise to make what I hope is a helpful suggestion. The complaint that lies at the heart of new Clause 7 is that the average defendant is not sufficiently aware of his right to apply for legal aid. If that is the case, we can tackle the problem without going to the length of enacting in Statute form what the appropriate rights are.
At the moment every defendant, with one class excepted, is brought to court either on a summons or after a charge, he having been arrested, is reduced to written form. Would it not be possible for the written charge and for the summons to bear wording to the effect that "legal aid will be available in your case, so do not neglect to inquire when you arrive at court whether you are entitled to it"? When he addresses the magistrates on this point and acquaints them with the Widgery rules, my hon. and learned Friend might suggest that.
I referred to a class to which this does not apply—those arrested and kept in custody overnight and brought to court next morning. It could not apply to them and I appreciate that there is a large number of such cases—for example, shoplifting and cases of that kind. Perhaps this is the kind of case where a cautionary word by the magistrates might be justified in ensuring that the defendant knows his right to apply for legal aid.

Mr. Edward Lyons: The ambit of new Clause 7 is narrow. Fundamentally, it says that in cases where the granting of legal aid is within the scope of the magistrates, they should tell the accused that he has the right to apply for it. But given the skill which Parliamentarians have, the debate has been


kept going for a very long time and we have touched on the virtues and vices of lawyers and justices and the problems of probation. I do not propose to do any of that but to keep my remarks extremely brief, as always.

12.30 a.m.

The Widgery criteria are not wide enough because they do not take into account the problem imposed by distance. Holidaymakers plead guilty in the magistrates' courts far more often than any other class of person. A person from Bradford goes to Cornwall on holiday and is charged with a driving offence. When the case comes on he is back in Bradford in the middle of the working week and he has to go all the way to Cornwall with several witnesses. There are train fares to pay or petrol to buy and overnight hotel bills to pay. He does not know about legal aid. If he does, there is the unwillingness of the courts to grant it to him. The result is that, although he feels he is not guilty and has witnesses to say so, he writes to say that he will not contest the matter and is guilty.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is not one of the difficulties here that even if he is acquitted his chance of getting costs is almost nil?

Mr. Lyons: That is perfectly true. The Widgery criteria should have taken into account the expense imposed by distance in relation to the possible penalty, so that it is not worth a man defending even though he is innocent.

Mr. Carlisle: Since the point has been made so many times, I put it to the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons), and ask him to confirm, that in driving cases a person can invariably be represented without any charge through his insurance company within the terms of his insurance agreement or, alternatively, if he is a member, by the AA or the RAC. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there is not ample provision for the representation of motorists?

Mr. Lyons: I am not sure that is right. I know of a person who had no representation and his problem was not only his own expenses but the expenses of taking three people.

Mr. Carlisle: That is another matter.

Mr. Lyons: But if a person has witnesses in widely scattered parts of England and Scotland who have to stay away from work and be taken to Cornwall, it is impossible for the ordinary working man to do that and, as a consequence, he is obliged to plead guilty.
Although the RAC, the AA or the insurance company may give some help, legal aid covers the expenses of defence witnesses, including travelling expenses, time off work, and so on. It is difficult to obtain legal aid in driving cases and often the accused man does not know of the existence of the legal aid provision.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Although it may be possible for the accused person to send a lawyer to represent him, that means that he cannot himself give evidence in denial of the charge. That point was not met by the Minister's intervention. Secondly, is not the accused person required to be in attendance in court where there is a charge as distinct from a summons?

Mr. Lyons: I am entirely in agreement with those observations. The Widgery criteria and no doubt the circular which is to be sent do not cover that point.
I apologise for not being able to participate in the rest of the debate, but I have to go to Bradford to hear the right hon. and noble Friend of the Minister open the new law courts, and therefore have to catch a sleeper. I am sure that in the Bradford law courts legal aid will always be granted in a proper case.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: We have now had four debates, three of which have together lasted over eight hours. The majority of that time has been after ten o'clock at night and a not insubstantial part of it after midnight. Hon. Members on both sides have contributed in equal numbers to the debates. No one could say that the matters which have been discussed have been trivial or unimportant.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have protested on this and previous occasions that matters of such importance should not be dealt with in this way. I hope that the Home Secretary, whom I am glad to see in his place, will convey to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that matters of grave importance


within his direct Departmental responsibility ought not to be discussed at this time of night. They are serious matters affecting a great many individuals, and they ought to be disussed in a fashion which gives opportunity to all hon. Members, whether lawyers, magistrates or neither, to take part.
The need to ensure that legal aid is freely available in criminal cases, in accordance with the Widgery criteria, is not doubted. No hon. Member has doubted that the present position, though certainly an improvement over what it was some years ago, is still unsatisfactory. It is conceded that there are wide disparities between one court and another, and especially between one magistrates' court and another, so much so that hon. Members on both sides have referred to legal aid as being a lottery. Perhaps that is too strong a term, but it is an indication of the view of those who are experienced in these matters.
Perhaps even more important than the disparities between courts in dealing with applications for legal aid is the fact, to which several hon. Members have referred, that many people who need legal aid are unaware of their right to apply for it. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) made a suggestion which might partially—only partially, as he admitted—deal with that difficulty. The hon. and learned Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder), in a powerful speech on the subject, made the significant observation, speaking as one who has sat as chairman of quarter sessions—I confirm what he said from my own experience for many years as a recorder—that, very often, when an appeal goes to the higher court and the defendant is legally represented, facts are disclosed and knowledge is obtained by the court which lead it to take a view totally different from that taken in the court below.
I assure the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that that is no criticism of the magistrates. The magistrates cannot do their job if they do not have all the equipment necessary for them to do it, and part of that equipment is that the defendant should be properly represented if he is not able to make his case himself so that all necessary matters are brought to the

court's attention. They cannot make the right decision if they have not the material upon which to make it.
What do we suggest to cure these admitted ills? First, we suggest that those who satisfy the broad Widgery criteria and who are not represented when they reach court should be informed of their right to apply. The hon. Member for Orpington tried to produce the same result in a different way. But why should not the Statute make it obligatory upon the court to inform those people of their right to apply if they do not already know of that right?
The Minister of State tells us that a circular will be issued. Will it advise the courts that they should take this step, where the Widgery criteria are fulfilled, of informing defendants of their right to apply for legal aid, or will it merely remind them of what the Widgery criteria are? We did not have a word about that important matter in the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks.
I say it is important for this reason. I agree that the figures show that there has been a very considerable increase in the granting of legal aid since 1966 when the Widgery Report came out. The Minister of State was good enough to give me figures by letter. They show that in magistrates courts, including both indictable cases dealt with summarily and other cases, whereas in 1967 the number of grants of legal aid was nearly 31,000, in 1970 it had become 69,000. That is an admirable improvement. It is interesting and important to note the other figures that the hon. and learned Gentleman gave me. In the same period, those sentenced in those courts to immediate imprisonment went down from 25,500 to just over 19,000, a reduction of about a quarter in the prison population. It seems to me that those are the most significant figures that we have had in the debate.
While the figures of the grant of legal aid may have gone up, what the Minister of State did not tell us was how those figures compare with the number of people appearing before those courts who, on the Widgery criteria, would have been entitled to legal aid. We were not told how many people did not apply, whether because they did not know or for some other reason, for the legal aid which was


their right on the Widgery criteria. That is the really important question. It is all very well for people who know to apply to be granted it. But it is that unknown number of people who do not apply because they do not know which we seek to cover in the new Clause. We have heard nothing about them in the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply.
However many circulars are issued, the disparities are bound to continue, unless there is some control by the courts themselves. The best form of control that the courts can maintain is when people are told the reasons why their applications for legal aid are refused. That enables one to see the standards of one court compared with that of another, and it enables the higher courts to keep control of the exercise of this discretion.

12.45 a.m.

The Minister of State's answer was wholly unsatisfactory and, indeed, negative. He did not tell us whether the circular which he suggested would be issued in due course would tell the courts that they ought to give reasons when they refuse to grant legal aid. Nor did the Minister tell us whether there was any power in the Home Office to require or invite courts to do so. I should like to know whether that will be in the circular, just as I should like to know whether the circular will tell courts that defendants should be informed of their rights. We have heard nothing at all about that.

The Clause would make it obligatory upon courts to give their reasons for refusing legal aid so that all may know and be able to see whether disparities which are believed to exist are genuine, or whether they arise simply through different circumstances affecting different courts. That is something that we cannot tell at present.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) made an extremely valid point when he drew attention to paragraph 181 of the Widgery Report and a similar passage in paragraph 186 which shows that the Widgery Committee thought that merely setting out on paper what the criteria should be in the form of a departmental committee's report would not make a great deal of difference. Yet here we have figures showing that since 1967 the granting of legal aid

has more than doubled. Either there was a serious deficiency when Widgery made his report, which he did not appreciate was there, or other extraneous factors have been critical in producing these figures. Whichever it is, the giving of reasons for the refusal of legal aid would enable us to know about matters which we ought to know about.

The third main part of the Clause is the setting out in broad terms—with, as my right hon. Friend said, certain differences—the criteria themselves. The Minister of State has criticised them in certain respects. Others have said that since Widgery organisations such as Justice have suggested that these criteria could well be expanded. If the Minister of State had said that the Clause in its present form would not do and that a Clause in a better and more up-to-date form would be inserted at a later stage in another place, we should have been glad to hear that, and I should not have insisted on the wording of the Clause, for which I bear responsibility. But we heard nothing of the kind.

The Minister and the Home Office seem to be highly reluctant to put matters of this kind in statute. I can never understand why. After all, a statute is where people look in order to see what their duties are. The Criminal Justice Act, 1967, set up the system of criminal legal aid as it now exists, and we are suggesting that coupled with that and by way of amendment to that statute there should be inserted into the law the criteria upon which that legal aid should be granted. Why on earth not? What is the danger of doing that? What is the disrespect to the courts in doing that? Why should it be done by Home Office circular, which can at best be only advisory and, as I have endeavoured to show, in some respects at any rate is bound to be seriously defective?

We are not satisfied with the answer which the Minister of State has given. I wish that the hour were a more reasonable one so that we could show our dissatisfaction in a more concrete way. But we are not responsible for that. We have had to accept the time that has been given tous.

The Minister of State commented that this matter has been frequently raised since he has been at the Home Office, that is, over the last two years. I agree.


It will be raised again and again in the future until we get a satisfactory answer.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House proceeded to a Division but, no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, Mr. Deputy Speaker declared that the Noes had it.

Clause 1

COMPENSATION ORDERS AGAINST CONVICTED PERSONS

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 2, leave out from 'compensation' to end of line 11 and insert
'for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from that offence or any other offence which is taken into consideration by the court in determining sentence.
(1A) In the case of an offence under the Theft Act 1968, where the property in question is recovered, any damage to the property occurring while it was out of the owner's possession shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) above as having resulted from the offence, however and by whomsoever the damage was caused'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With Amendment No. 1 it will be convenient for the House to discuss the following:

Sub-Amendment (a), in line 2, after 'from', insert 'the circumstances of'.

Amendment No. 2, in line 14, leave out from 'made' to 'in' in line 15.

Amendment No. 3, in line 17, at end insert:
'except such damage as is treated by subsection (1A) above as resulting from an offence under the Theft Act 1968'.

Amendment No. 4, in line 21, at beginning insert '(a)'.

Amendment No. 5, in line 21, at end insert:
'and
(b) to any circumstances which appear to the court to make it appropriate that any issue as to liability or amount should be dealt with by a civil court'.

Amendment No. 6, in line 34, leave out subsection (5).

Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 32, leave out from 'that' to 'the' in line 36 and insert:
(a) as a result of the offence, or of that offence taken together with any other relevant

offence or offences, loss or damage (not attributable to personal injury) has been suffered by one or more persons whose identity is known to the court, and
(b) the amount, or aggregate amount, of the loss or damage exceeds £15.000.

Amendment No. 11, in line 37, leave out 'that person' and insert 'the offender'.

Amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 1, leave out from 'sentence' to end of line 2.

Amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 5, leave out 'been caused by' and insert 'resulted from'.

Amendment No. 37, in page 36, line 27 [Schedule 1], leave out from second 'the' to 'and' in line 29 and insert:
'loss or damage did not in fact result from any offence specified in the order'.

Mr. Carlisle: These Amendments meet an undertaking I gave in Committee to look at the words used in Clause 1, which it was suggested was too limited in two substantial respects with regard to the payment of compensation. It was suggested that the use of the words
loss of, or damage to, property
might prove to be too limited, in that it would not apply to cases where the loss concerned, though clearly financial, was not obviously a loss of property, namely as in offences under the Trade Descriptions Act, and that the words "caused by that offence" were too narrow in that it could be argued that they did not extend to all the circumstances in which compensation might be appropriate.
The Amendments develop the general approach that we have made in the Bill, which is that courts should have power to order compensation in the widest possible terms.
The main Amendment is No. 1, which will amend subsection (1) so that it will read as follows, so far as is revelant:
…in addition to dealing with him in any other way
a court may
make an order…requiring him to pay compensation for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from that offence or any other offence which is taken into consideration by the court in determining sentence.
The effect of the removal of the word "property" from subsection (1) is to widen the court's power to order compensation to include cases where loss or


damage arises from the offence. This will remove any doubt that might have existed that the earlier words did not include offences under the Trade Descriptions Act. There was a possibility that the use of the word "property" might not include offences of obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception under Section 16 of the Theft Act.
The effect of the removal of the words "caused by" and their replacement by the words "resulting from that offence" is to avoid doubts raised by hon. Members on both sides in Committee, particularly by my hon and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) about limitations these words might have imposed upon the courts.
This is, in a way, an important Amendment. It clearly widens the scope of the Clause in the way that was intended. The other Amendments have a similar effect on the criminal bankruptcy provisions in Clause 7.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The House will welcome the Amendments, which give effect to proposals which we made in Committee and which were supported by hon. Members opposite. The House will be particularly glad to learn that the Clause as it will be amended will enable a court which convicts someone of an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act to award compensation to a person who suffers loss or damage as a result of the offence. I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the fact that the Government have tabled these Amendments to give effect to the undertaking that the Minister of State gave in Committee to look at the matter.
There are three matters that I need to deal with—those which are raised by sub-Amendment (a) and that which is raised by Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. Sub-Amendment (a) may well seem to be a minor matter. In Committee I moved an Amendment, one of the objects of which was to seek to widen the scope of the right to compensation so that it was not narrowly restricted to injury or loss which had been caused by the actual offence, but would extend to injury or loss caused not only by but also in the course of furtherance of the offence or as a result of an attempt to evade detection or arrest.
In putting forward that Amendment the opposition had particularly in mind the innocent bystander who may well be caused injury which does not arise directly out of the offence charged. We took the view that such persons are often in a much greater need of compensation than possibly a wealthy corporation insured against loss from theft, which would normally be directly envisaged by the Clause.
The Minister of State pointed out in Committee that there were certain difficulties about our Amendment, although he appeared to be generally sympathetic towards its objectives. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) suggested as an alternative to the narrow words "caused by" some such words
 '…as or arising from the circumstances of the commission, of that offence…'" "—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 7th December, 1971; c. 56.]
The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) suggested "caused by or in the course of the commission of the offence." The Minister, who was good enough to agree those forms of wording, undertook, if he was advised that wording of that nature was more appropriate than the words "caused by", to put down an Amendment at this stage.
The Government Amendment, as the Minister has already informed the House, has altered the wording in this way, that the words "caused by" are removed and the words "resulting from" are inserted. A similar Amendment is to be made to Clause 7.
Unless there is authority to the contrary—and if there is I am certain the Minister of State with his great knowledge in these matters will tell the House—that seems to be a distinction without a difference. The sub-Amendment on the Order Paper in the names of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South, my hon. Friends and myself, would somewhat widen the scope of the clause. Compensation could be awarded, if that sub-Amendment were accepted, not only for injury or loss resulting directly from the offence, but also for injury or loss resulting from the circumstances of the offence. Thereby we believe, from the sort of situation which I earlier described, that


that wording follows the wording suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend in Committee while not going quite so far as the wording suggested in the Opposition's Amendment in Committee or the wording suggested by the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde. We think that the addition, though minor, would be useful and one which the Government either here or in another place could usefully accept.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. In Committee there was a great deal of discussion on the possible conflict between the power of a criminal court to award compensation and the jurisdiction of a civil court to order damages. There, again, I moved an Amendment, one of several of the same character on the Order Paper, the purpose of which was to ensure that the criminal court would not order compensation where the defendant had or seemed to have a good defence to a civil claim, as such cases were clearly more appropriate for the civil court.
At col. 65 the Minister went some way towards accepting, at any rate, the objective of those Amendments, because he said:
If the intention of the Amendment is to ensure that the offender should not be required to pay more in compensation than he would be liable to in civil law or, indeed, that a compensation order would not be made where it was inequitable for it to be made, I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I am in sympathy with that intention.
However, the hon. and learned Gentleman felt unable to accept the Amendment because it appeared to him to require the criminal court to enter into consideration of matters which were more appropriate to a civil court. The Minister adopted the view of the Widgery Committee, which he quoted at col. 66:
The criminal courts are in no position to make any kind of detailed assessment of the extent of the victim's loss. In practice, compensation in criminal proceedings tends to be confined to cases where liability and the amount of the offender's loss are reasonably clear, and, usually, where the amount is small. We see no advantage in providing for delegagation of the assessment of quantum to a civil court'."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 7th December, 1971; c. 65–6.]
We have taken note of the Government's view and of the opinion of the Widgery Committee. Amendment No. 5 is worded so as to reflect those views by amending subsection (3) which at present

requires the court, in deciding whether to make a compensation order and the amount of any such order, to have regard to the defendant's means so far as they appear or are known to the court.
If our Amendment is accepted the court would also be required to have regard
to any circumstances which appear to the court"—
the court of criminal jurisdiction—
to make it appropriate that any issue as to liability or amount should be dealt with by a civil court.
It reflects almost to the words the view expressed by the Widgery Committee which the Minister of State quoted and accepted as valid.
A criminal court would not be barred from awarding compensation, even in the cases covered by the Amendment; but in such cases a criminal court would be required to take account of that factor. Thus, counsel for the defence would be in a position to draw the court's attention to the provision and to inform it of the circumstances which, if not already apparent, suggested that, in the words of the Widgery Committee, the case was not one of those
where liability and the amount of loss are reasonably clear
and therefore where it would be better to leave the question of compensation or damages to a civil court.
The Minister made it clear in Committee that in the sort of case we have in mind he would expect the criminal court in practice to refuse to make a compensation order when there appeared to be complications. But he went on to say:
It is one thing to say how one would proceed in practice, and entirely another thing to write into what is attempted to be a simple basis of enabling and encouraging courts to order compensation words which are likely to frighten them off so that they never use them at all".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 7th December, 1971; c. 68.]
Whatever criticism of that nature may have been advanced against the Amendments we moved in Committee, these Amendments are as simple as it is possible for Amendments to be. They could not possibly frighten off any court, and the court would not, in any circumstances, be likely to be deterred from using its powers simply because it


was necessary for it to take into account circumstances which appeared to make it appropriate that an issue as to liability or amount should be dealt with by the civil rather than the criminal court. They do no more than give statutory effect to what the Minister concedes is a desirable practice, and the necessity for including such words in the legislation, if it can be done simply, is very well illustrated by a report in The Timesyesterday morning of an appeal before the House of Lords in which the noble Lord Lord Reid criticised the authorities for failing to ensure that the legal profession was aware of and acted upon an assurance, which had been given by the then Solicitor-General to this House in recommending legislation, to the effect that the corresponding common law offence to that enacted by the legislation would not be used. Nevertheless, it was used and the matter went to the House of Lords.
It is because of that kind of case that when we can do it in a simple way it is better—and I am sorry again to refer to O'Keefe—to draw specific attention to the point in the legislation rather than to leave it to a practice which may be overlooked by magistrates and even by higher courts in the absence of express provision in the legislation.
I invite the Minister to look with sympathy on these Amendments. If he is not able to accept them, I hope that he will undertake to consider whether they can be inserted in the Bill when it goes to another place.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: People outside recognise this as a criminal justice Bill. They tend to assume that it deals purely with criminal matters. Not many people understand that the Trade Descriptions Act is covered by this Bill. Most of the actions which arise under the Trade Descriptions Act are thought to be civil matters. That Act is comparatively new and there have not been many cases brought under it. There is a concern that now that compensation can be given under this Bill covering cases arising under the Trade Descriptions Act many more people will seek damages or compensation under the Act.
I should be the last to suggest that anyone who feels that he has a case

under the Trade Descriptions Act should not bring it. Clearly he should, and clearly, if there is a case against a manufacturer or a supplier of a service, the plaintiff has a right of redress. But it is also important that encouragement should not be given to people to bring cases which may be unreasonable and may cause litigation and difficulty for those in business and industry engaged in providing goods or services.
This is the danger which concerns business and industry. They feel that a new situation might arise which we do not contemplate at this moment, that because proper compensation is available to enable those who suffer from criminal activities to obtain redress, people will see the opportunity on other matters that concern a simple trade or business to run for compensation.
For example, the travel and holiday industry is concerned about this. Quite rightly there has been action in the last year or two to try to provide redress within the industry for those who feel they have a grievance when something goes wrong on their holiday. Arbitration has been arranged by certain companies and the Association of British Travel Agents is trying to secure a watertight form of justice which will ensure that where difficulties arise which are not the fault of the customer, he will receive some form of redress and compensation.
The fear is that the customer may refuse to accept what is offered to him voluntarily and may run to the courts instead. In marginal cases where it is difficult to define whether a mistake has been made, or whether the damage has been done, the courts may not accept the case. But a great deal of difficulty and trouble will have been caused just the same for those running the business.
The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) indicated that he did not think the courts would award compensation in such cases but would instead send them back to the civil court. Whatever my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State may say, the courts do not take notice of his speeches at the Dispatch Box. They concern themselves only with what is in the Act. Even at this late stage I hope the Minister will agree to have the matter reconsidered when the Bill goes to the House of Lords.
The last thing that business wants is to put individuals in the position of not being able to obtain redress. Equally, would think it desirable that there should be no encouragement for some seeking of redress that was not justified and was simply creating difficulties without reason.

Mr. Dell: The Amendment the Minister moved dealt with a subject I raised in Committee. It is a subject on which I have been in correspondence with the Consumers' Association, which has asked me to say that it has considered the Amendment and wishes its pleasure and approval of it to be expressed.

Mr. Carlisle: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is nice to hear him agreeing with me for once. I should like first to answer the points raised by the hon and learned member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). I think that adding the phrase
the circumstances of
is a question of semantics. It was argued that if something were damaged in the process of a burglary it might be said that the damage was not caused by the burglary, but clearly it results from the damage. I do not think that the words would add anything.
I do not think it is either necessary or desirable to add the words that the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to add by means of Amendment 5. I have no doubt that the courts will not exercise their powers to order compensation when they believe that serious issues of complex liability arise. If we inserted the words of the Amendment the criminal court would immediately be removed from its main task of deciding the guilt or otherwise of the accused. The Amendment would cause courts to be unduly restricted in their exercise of the power to grant compensation. Anyway, I think there are adequate provisions in the Bill to meet the case where a person wishes to challenge a decision that he owes compensation.
With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis), an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act is not a civil matter. It is an offence, and compensation will follow under the Bill. It is nothing to do with civil liability if the person who is providing the service or

selling the goods has been convicted of a criminal offence. I do not believe that any honest trader need fear for a moment the effect of the Amendment. To commit an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act a person must either apply a false trade description or supply goods to which a false description is applied.
I have no doubt that in fact if those who sell goods, applying to them a false description—the point I am trying to look for and cannot at the moment find is that it must be knowingly—are convicted of doing so, it is reasonable for the court to have power to order compensation for the buyer. If, on the other hand, everything which occurred in fact occurred because of innocent error, I have no doubt that compensation under this Bill would not be appropriate. I do not think my hon. Friend need worry at all that the honest trader has anything to fear from the power to order compensation, any more than he has to fear from the Trade Descriptions Act as a whole.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Can my hon. and learned Friend say what happens when someone in this country in business acts as an agent and therefore inadvertently finds himself in a situation in which the description may be slightly incorrect, not through his fault, but arising out of something provided from another country? This will be important in a wide area when we go into Europe.
This means now, with the new Amendment my hon. Friend has put down, that whether a company is acting as an agent or a company overseas is to blame, any individual can go directly for compensation, whereas before he had to go for civil damages.

Mr. Carlisle: I apologise for not being able to answer my hon. Friend's point entirely.
I have no reason to believe that giving power to the courts to order compensation following a conviction for an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act goes any wider than civil rights for damages which an individual would be able to achieve. I will look at this again for any fear that it does.
We all know the type of person to whom the hon. Gentleman referred in Committee, where a case was drawn to my attention in which a court held that


there was no power to order compensation. The honest trader, however, need have no fear of the effects of the power to order compensation here widening his liability. If there is any doubt about this I will look at it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 2, line 14, leave out from 'made' to 'in' in line 15.

No. 3, in line 17, at end insert:
'except such damage as is treated by subsection (1A) above as resulting from an offence under the Theft Act 1968'.

No. 6, in line 34, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Clause 3

REVIEW OF COMPENSATION ORDERS

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 27, leave out 'the appropriate court" and insert:
'the magistrates court for the time being having functions in relation to the enforcement of the order'.
I hope it might be appropriate to take with this Government Amendment No. 8. These are drafting Amendments:

Amendment agreed to.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Dell: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 3, line 37, at end insert:
'or
(c) that there has been a substantial change in the circumstances of the offender'.
I raised this question in Committee, when, in the debate on Clause 3, I asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider what the situation would be in respect of a compensation order if there were any considerable change in the circumstances of the offender against whom the order had been made. The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to receive the point sympathetically, although he pointed out that there is a difference between a compensation order, in respect of which there is a beneficiary, and a fine, because, in that case, the State is the beneficiary. In his letter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) of 25th April, the hon. and learned Gentleman said he had considered the matter and

had decided, on the ground that there was this difference between a compensation order and a fine, to reject my suggestion that the Clause should be amended in the way Amendment No. 42 now proposes.
I simply put the question to the hon. and learned Gentleman: what happens if there is a substantial change in the circumstances of the offender? Suppose, for example, that he is incapacitated. Suppose he suffers a serious reduction in income. Suppose, in other words, he is genuinely not able to pay the compensation ordered against him. What happens then? It is clear that in these circumstances the victim does not get his money, but what is to happen to the offender? Is he under permanent liability to pay, even although he may have been inflicted, for example, by permanent ill health? Or does he eventually go to prison?
Why is it unreasonable to have in extreme circumstances some means of review. The Bill holds it to be a relevant consideration in determining the amount of the compensation order what the means of the offender are. I do not see why, if the means and circumstances of the offender change in some drastic way, there should not be some ultimate power of review vested in the courts in the way I suggest.

Mr. Carlisle: The purpose of the Amendment is in effect to seek a power to remit a compensation order analogous to the power which exists over a fine. I concede that the arguments are finely balanced. It can be said that since there is the power to remit a fine, there should be a power to remit a compensation order. But against that is the argument that this would involve compromising the interests of a third party and doing so in his absence, because the compensation order is made in favour of a third party.
It is an argument difficult entirely to ignore. Certainly, the Widgery Committee, which recommended specifically that the means of the individual should be taken into account in assessing the compensation order, never suggested that there should be a power to remit, and both Governments over the last few years have drawn this distinction. The Labour Government themselves brought in an Amendment to their Criminal Justice Act, 1967, deliberately aimed to confine the


power of remission to fines. Equally, the present Government made it clear in the context of the Courts Act that the term "fine" was not to include a compensation order.
I accept that no purpose will be achieved for the third party if a person who is palpably incapable of paying the compensation order is sent to prison. Against that one has to judge the fact that in general it would be wrong to allow the courts to choose to remit orders made in the interests of third parties without those third parties being represented. I have considered this finely balanced argument and have decided on reflection that it would not be right to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's recommendations.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman look at this again and perhaps have it considered in another place? The argument of my right hon. Friend suggested that an extraordinary lacuna would be left if a person against whom an order was made suffered a change of circumstances which rendered him completely incapable of meeting the obligation. As things stand, the courts are left in the position of not knowing what they are expected to do, and so .is the enforcing authority. All I ask now is for the Home Office and the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at this again.

Mr. Carlisle: I am quite prepared to accede to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman asks. I am prepared to consider this should it be raised again in another place. It is contrary to the view that the Labour Government and the present Government have taken in other legislation. Indeed, the Labour Government specifically moved an Amendment in the other place to achieve this result during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967. But I find the arguments so finely balanced that, if pressed, I will look at it again.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 3, line 38, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Clause 6

RESTITUTION ORDERS

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 29, at end insert:
'but this subsection shall not apply where the order is made under section 28(1)(a) or (b) and the court so directs, being of the opinion that the title to the goods to be restored or, as the case may be, delivered or transferred under the order is not in dispute.
Clause 6(5) provides that a restitution order made by a magistrates' court should be suspended automatically until the expiration of the period of time in which notice of appeal may be given or, when such notice has been given, until the determination of the appeal.
It has been drawn to our attention and particularly urged upon us by the Justices Clerks Society that there are circumstances in which it would be right to waive that suspension where it is clear that the title to the goods is in no way in dispute and is in no way affected by the fact that an individual has given notice of appeal.
The purpose of the Amendment is to provide flexibility by allowing magistrates' courts to waive the suspension in appropriate cases, and there is an equivalent provision in relation to the Crown courts already in Section 30 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1968. The effect of the Amendment is to give similar flexibility to the magistrates' courts.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

CRIMINAL BANKRUPTCY ORDERS AGAINST CONVICTED PERSONS

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 5, line 32, leave out from 'that' to 'the' in line 36 and insert:
(a) as a result of the offence, or of that offence taken together with any other relevant offence or offences, loss or damage (not attributable to personal injury) has been suffered by one or more persons whose identity is known to the court, and
(b) the amount, or aggregate amount, of the loss or damage exceeds £15,000.

No. 11, in line 37, leave out 'that person' and insert 'the offender'.

No. 12, in page 6, line 1, leave out from 'sentence' to end of line 2.

No. 13, in line 5, leave out 'been caused by' and insert 'resulted from'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 6, line 24, at end insert
'and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.
The effect of the Amendment is to ensure that, should the Home Secretary choose to lower the threshold figure of £15,000 at which criminal bankruptcy proceedings begin to bite, any order to lower that figure should be subject to the negative Resolution procedure.
At this stage, all I need add is that it arises out of an undertaking which I gave in Committee to ensure that the appropriate Amendment would be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

APPEALS IN THE CASE OF CRIMINAL BANKRUPTCY ORDERS

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 6, line 26, at end insert:
'except upon the ground that in making such order the court so making it erred in law'
Under the Bill as it stands, there is no appeal against the making of a bankruptcy order, whether on a point of law or a point of fact, although there is an appeal against the bankruptcy order when appeal is made against conviction as well.
Over the years, we have wisely allowed, almost without exception, for an appeal upon a point of law, and we have extended the principle of appeal on a point of law to the decisions of many tribunals, even down to such humble bodies as rent tribunals. It seems a regressive step, therefore, to oust the jurisdiction of the appellate courts in this case.
The case for the Amendment rests on the general proposition that there ought to be an appeal upon a point of law. Like everyone else, judges occasionally make mistakes, even on matters of law. One cannot say in advance what kind of mistake might be made which could give rise to appeal on a point of law against the making of a bankruptcy order, but here are two examples.
First, the loss suffered may be manifestly less than £15,000, and a mistake might be made on that score. I know of a case in which the court made a mistake in thinking that it could make a restitution order. It was a prosecution under the Metropolitan Police Act, and the court had confused the provisions of that Act with the one involving damage to property. If the amount involved is manifestly less than £15,000, an appeal on a point of law should lie.
Second, no loss whatever may be suffered by anyone at the point when the sentence is given by the judge. There was recently a case of fraud in which the losses suffered were in excess of £15,000 when the case opened, but by the time the case had finished arrangements had been made by the defendant to repay in full all who had suffered loss. That fact could escape the notice of the court and, perhaps by oversight, a criminal bankruptcy order would be made. Here, too, I submit, there ought to be an appeal on a point of law.
It is no good to say that the defendant could explain to the registrar in bankruptcy that he had already paid everything off, and the registrar would not present a petition. That is not good enough. If a person against whom a criminal bankruptcy order is made is in business, for example, he will undoubtedly suffer some hardship, even though he has made restitution, by having an interregnum between the making of the order and the decision of the registrar not to present a petition.
It is curious that under Clause 29 the prosecution has a right of appeal on a point of law where the defendant has been acquitted. Under this Clause, on the other hand, the defendant has no right of appeal on a point of law against a decision when he has been convicted. This is a gross inconsistency. I am sure that it must be an oversight, and I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Carlisle: This is not an oversight as such. It was discussed in Committee. The Widgery Committee said specifically:
…the order, which would constitute an act of bankruptcy, would not be open to appeal in the criminal courts, but could, if necessary, be questioned by the offender in the bankruptcy procedures in the usual way.


It is hard to envisage circumstances in which an appeal against a bankruptcy order as such could be relevant, when there is already the power to order the conviction.
However, I wish to be friendly and helpful. I shall look at what the hon. Gentleman has said and, if he cares to advance any other possible types of errors on points of law which could occur against which a right of appeal would be some safeguard, I shall be prepared to consider the matter again in another place. But I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the Widgery Committee could not believe that any such right of appeal was necessary and, at the moment, I am not persuaded by what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Did the Widgery Committee consider the question of an error of law? Certainly it considered the question of appeal.

Mr. Carlisle: I do not know whether it did. But it is difficult to see what error in law could occur. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) took the example of a case where the loss turned out to be below £15,000. Clearly this could be challenged in the bankruptcy, and no harm would seem to have been done. Indeed, some advantage might accrue to the victims of the crime, even if the amount lost turned out to be under £15,000 rather than over it. But if the hon. Gentleman thinks that there are circumstances in which an error in law could arise, I am prepared to consider any further details that he cares to supply me.

Mr. Fraser: In the circumstances, and in the hope of getting further concessions later, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10

ABOLITION OF OBLIGATION TO SUSPEND CERTAIN SENTENCES AND REDUCTION IN MAXIMUM PERIOD OF SUSPENSION

Mr. Dell: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 8, line 15, leave out 'cease to have effect' and insert:
'have effect subject to the following proviso: That the Court need not make an order under

section 39(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 where the offender has at any time before the commission of the offence been sentenced to any custodial sentence or has three or more previous convictions for an indictable offence'.
I should have preferred to speak to Amendment No. 16. However, I suspected that it would not be selected, because it is identical with an Amendment that I moved in Committee. For that reason, I sought to table an Amendment which achieved at any rate something of the same effect. In fact, this Amendment represents a compromise between the position that I took up in Committee and that of the Minister of State.
In Committee, I discussed this matter at some length, and I attempted to make two points. The first was that the mandatory provision of Section 39(3) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, should be retained and not repealed as it is by Clause 10(1). I also made the point that the O'Keefe decision should be enacted. That second point received support from both sides of the Committee, and that is achieved by Amendment No. 18, which we shall be discussing shortly. The first of my points has not been accepted.
In Committee, I argued on the basis of the facts known at the time and on the basis of the arguments which had been put forward by the Secretary of State and the Minister of State in favour of abolishing the mandatory provision. I also argued what might be described as a point of philosophy, namely, that it is not wrong that the discretion of the court should be restricted if a clearly valuable objective is being achieved by so doing.
Since the debates in Committee additional information has become available. It was admitted at the time of those debates that the probable immediate consequence of the Government's decision would bean increase in prison receptions and consequently in the prison population, but since then certain new facts have become available.
One such fact to which I should refer is that the Howard League, having considered the matter, has come to the conclusion that the mandatory provision should not be abolished. But in addition we have a further memorandum from the Home Office on this question—a memorandum issued last month—for which I


am grateful. It is a valuable contribution to the discussion of this subject, and I hope that the Home Office will find some way of publishing it shortly in accessible form.
The essential and most valuable point in the second memorandum is a study of a sample of 1,000 persons given suspended sentences in the first quarter of 1968—a study of their past and of their future—and it is largely as a consequence of that memorandum that I have moved the Amendment in this form.
The memorandum shows, first, that offenders falling within the mandatory categories have a relatively low rate of breach. It shows, secondly, that first offenders given suspended sentences have a very low rate of breach, as one would expect—11 per cent.—and one may wonder what the Government think they are doing by increasing the opportunity of the courts to send such first offenders, with such a low rate of breach, to prison, bearing in mind not just the undesirability of so doing, but the present condition of our prisons.
Thirdly—and this leads to the form of the Amendment—the study showed that there were two groups within the mandatory categories in respect of which the rate of breach was high, and what I am doing in the Amendment is saying, "Let us keep the mandatory category where it has clearly achieved the objects for which it was constituted, but cut out of it those two specific groups specified in the Amendment where the rate of breach is high. I put that to the Government as a compromise between the position which they take up and the position which I take up. After all, this information is the result of Home Office research. What is the point of Home Office research unless one learns from it and takes action in accordance with what it shows?
That is the reason why my Amendment is in this form but I say again, as is so often said by backbenchers when they move Amendments, that if the Government have some other or better way of achieving the main object of retaining the mandatory principle I should be delighted to accept their proposal.
Ever since the first memorandum it has been clear—or at any rate clear enough for even the Home Office to accept it—that the result of repeal would

be an immediate increase in imprisonment and that the future could not be forecast. In Committee I asked what conceivable justification there could be for taking such a course deliberately and knowingly when there was no evidence at all—and the Minister presented no evidence to the Committee—that any substantial harm had been done by the mandatory provision.
But perhaps I am being unfair to some extent in saying that the Minister decided on this course deliberately and knowingly, because what I observe is that at the time the Bill was introduced, at the time when it received its Second Reading, and even at the time when we were debating it in Committee, the information contained in the sample of 1,000 offenders given suspended sentences was not available to Ministers. They did not know what that information was and they could not learn from it. Perhaps they now have it available and will learn from it, and will draw back from a course which can have monstrous consequences.
The Home Office must have some idea what increase in imprisonment will follow from the repeal of the mandatory provisions. It must have that idea if only for administrative reasons. It must have attempted to estimate what increase in receptions our overcrowded prisons will have to cope with. It must have some idea about that, just as I believe it must have some estimate of the extent to which the prison population is less at present than it would have been if the mandatory category had not existed. I believe that the extent to which the prison population is less at present may be a figure approaching 1,000.
My main question is, what does the Home Office estimate that the increase in prison receptions will be as a result of the abolition of the mandatory categories? I asked that question of the hon. and learned Gentleman yesterday, giving him a final chance to say what he could on this subject. The memorandum says that it would be hard to make an estimate. The hon. and learned Gentleman's answer yesterday was that no such estimate could usefully be made.
I believe that an estimate can be made and that a figure of 2,000 for the increase in prison receptions is credible. I have asked the Howard League for its view


of this figure as a possible increase in prison receptions resulting from the abolition of the mandatory categories, and it permits me to say that it finds that figure entirely credible.
I want to explain to the hon. and learned Gentleman why I find that figure credible. If he sees any fault in my reasoning, perhaps he will interrupt me and point it out. We know that in 1970 about 34,000 persons were given suspended sentences. From the sample of 1,000 persons given suspended sentences in the first quarter of 1968, which is described in the memorandum as being reasonably representative of men given suspended sentences, we know that 42·5 per cent. of those persons fell within the mandatory categories. That would suggest that of the 34,000 given a suspended sentence in 1970, about 14,000 would have been within the mandatory categories.
One has some check on this figure in addition to what the memorandum provides us with. Mr. Richard Sparks, in an article published in the "Criminal Law Review" last year, made an estimate, with rather less information than is now available, that probably the majority of suspended sentences passed in magistrates courts would be within the mandatory categories. That would put a slightly larger figure than 14,000 on it. But 14,000 is enough for my purpose. I say that, on the basis of the memorandum, which is described as reasonably representative, it is probable that 14,000 fell within the mandatory categories.

2.0 a.m.

The question is: would these 14,000 who in 1970 were within the mandatory categories now be given a suspended sentence on a discretionary basis or would any of them be sent to immedate imprisonment and, if so, how many?

One comfort that we cannot take is that as a result of the abolition of the mandatory provision any of these 14,000 would have been given probation, as they might have been before the suspended sentence system was introduced. The Secretary of State tried to argue on Second Reading that this might be the consequence of the abolition of the mandatory provision. The first memorandum on this subject issued by the Home Office

completely rejected that argument as being not worthy of serious consideration.

How many of these 14,000 would have been given discretionary sentences, and how many immediate imprisonment if the law had been as the Government now propose to make it? There are many difficult considerations involved in trying to make an assessment of that position. The Bill makes certain minor improvements. Clause 13 is a general discouragement to the use of imprisonment. There is the intention to enact O'Keefe, which may have a small beneficial effect. There is the inclination of the courts not to imprison where they think it possible not to do so. There is also the fact that the Magistrates' Association has been pressing very hard for the repeal of the mandatory provision. Therefore, presumably magistrates will use their additional discretion when they get it.

Against that background, it would be reasonable to believe that 85 per cent. of these 14,000 would have been given a discretionary suspended sentence and only 15 per cent. to immediate imprisonment. That 15 per cent. produces an increase of 2,000 prison receptions in one year. That makes the figure of 2,000 entirely crediible. Fifteen per cent. is a figure. We might choose another figure. It might be less or more. I do not know what figure the Home Office has chosen, but clearly if it were a higher percentage the figure would be higher.

One can make various checks on the credibility of a figure of that order. One can compare it with the fall between 1967 and 1968 in the numbers of prisoners received into prison under sentence without the option of a fine, which might give some guide as to the effect of the introduction of the suspended prison sentence. That was a figure of 8,000. In addition to the 8,000, there would have been some who, though given suspended sentence at the beginning of 1968, had already breached by the end of it. Therefore, I conclude that 2,000 is reasonable against that check.

Another check which can be made is the fall in the population of open prisons between 1967 and 1968. I make that check because Mr. Richard Sparks suggests that one of the consequences of the introduction of the mandatory provision was a marked fall in the population


of open prisons. Putting it against that fall, the figure of 2,000 seems credible.

A further stage in the argument is that offenders within the mandatory category also have a breach rate, and a set-off would have to be made against that. The breach rate is about 33⅓ per cent. If the Government imagine that magistrates have a peculiar capacity to identify offenders coming before them who are likely to have a high breach rate, the Government are imagining more than the evidence provides. Even if we allow for that and say that the magistrates are particularly wise in that respect, the Minister of State will find that it does not make all that difference.

Suppose that the rate were 50 per cent. We know that there is an 80 per cent, implementation rate. If there were 2,000 additional receptions, in the short run there would be a permanent running figure of about 1,200 additional receptions. If we pushed up the figure from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent., we might say that if there were 3,000 initially, there would be a running additional figure of 1,800. It does not make all that difference. It is a substantial increase in the prison receptions following from the abolition of the mandatory categories.

I am against the abolition of the mandatory categories, quite independently of these figures. I was arguing against the abolition of the mandatory provision even when I was not aware of these figure, because I saw that it would increase the prison receptions, and might increase them substantially as I suggested in my Second Reading speech.

Having seen these figures, I am even more alarmed than I was on Second Reading. If figures of this order are right, or if anything like them is right, or if half of them is right, there is nothing else in the Bill that could possibly compensate for a decision of this sort by the House to increase the prison population.

The Government should draw back from this decision. They should decide that the mandatory categories should be retained. They have fulfilled a useful purpose in keeping people out of prison when there was no public benefit in their going into prison. There is no justification for adding this new group of prisoners to our overcrowded prisons. I

hope that the Government will think again.

Mr. Grieve: I hope that the House will forgive me if even at this late hour I rise to express as shortly and succinctly as I can my entire dissent both from the proposed Amendment and the arguments with which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) supported the proposed Amendment. I say that in the fullest possible recognition of the obvious sincerity of the right hon. Member in adducing his arguments.
I go back to the Act of 1967. I recollect serving on the Committee at that time and foreseeing the harm which I believed would result, which I am now convinced has resulted, from this fetter upon the discretion of the courts.
Fetters of this kind upon the discretion of the courts usually result in putting the courts in the position of not being able to do justice in cases in the public interest when they should be able to do so. I appreciate that at the time—this is really the gravamen of the right hon. Gentleman's argument—it was thought that this was a way of dealing with overcrowding in prisons. Of course, we must face the fact that overcrowding in prisons is a grave social evil. However, the way to tackle that overcrowding is not to refrain from sending people to prison if their cases merit that they should be sent to prison and the public interest demands that they should be sent to prison, but to provide more up-to-date prisons and more prison accommodation.
As a result of the mandatory suspended sentence provided for in the 1967 Act the courts found themselves faced again and again with the position—I speak with experience, having sat as a recorder and deputy chairman of quarter sessions throughout this period—that they were unable to send to prison persons who had committed offences for which, in the public interest, they thought imprisonment was the appropriate punishment. This was particularly so in cases not of theft or dishonesty, but of vandalism.
The House will recall that not so long ago there was a grave outbreak of damage to telephones throughout the country which not only resulted in inconvenience to the public, but, in many cases, in actual danger to the public when the telephones could not be used. The courts


found themselves inhibited from sending to short sentences of imprisonment persons who had committed that kind of vandalism.
I have no hesitation in suggesting that the best way of achieving justice in our courts is to leave to them the most complete discretion, subject to the normal maxima.
If it be objected that there should be some check in the magistrates' courts, I suggest that check lies by way of appeal. Anyone sentenced in a magistrates' court can appeal against his sentence to quarter sessions, or now to the Crown Court, so such sentences are subject to review.
I listened with interest to the figures which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, as it were, conjured up—I do not use that expression in a derogatory sense—to show to what extent more people might be sent to prison as a result of the removal of the mandatory suspended sentence. I thought there was an element of speculation in those figures which entirely vitiated any reliance which could possibly be put upon them. The argument adduced was not unlike that of the medieval schoolmen who devoted long hours to deciding how many angels could stand upon the head of a pin.
I submit that the House is not assisted—

Mr. Dell: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Grieve: In a few moments, certainly. I submit that the House is not assisted by speculation of that kind.
I go back to the point I made initially. Even if the removal of the mandatory suspended sentence results in some increase in the prison population, if that increase is in the public interest in that the imposition of short prison sentences in certain circumstances may be right, then the increase must be provided for by building more prison accommodation.
I willingly give way to the right hon. Gentleman now.

Mr. Dell: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Is he aware that two memoranda produced by the Home Office have stated that there will be some immediate increase in prison receptions,

and hence in prison population, as a result of this decision? I should be delighted if the Home Office said that its estimate—I am sure it has made an estimate—is so different from mine as to leave me with a great deal less anxiety about the practical consequences of this decision. I am sure the Home Office has made an estimate, and we should be told what it is.

Mr. Grieve: I cannot answer for the Home Office. I have no doubt my hon. and learned Friend will do so very shortly. It seems to me—the argument does not improve by being repeated; certainly not at quarter past two in the morning—that any estimate of this kind must, to a large extent, be speculative. I submit that such estimates must be considered against the whole tenor of the times, which is against sending people to prison unnecessarily.
I do not believe that the discretion which is being restored to the courts will be abused. The contrary will be the case, because, in my experience, it is the policy and the atmosphere of the courts to strive to the utmost to refrain from sending offenders to prison unnecessarily. But there may well be times when there is a wave of a particular type of crime sweeping the country when short prison sentences provide a sanction and deterrent which the country, in today's circumstances of crime, cannot afford to be without.
I opposed the introduction of the mandatory prison sentence in the 1967 Act. I am happy to see discretion restored to the courts by this Bill, and I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

2.15 a.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I cannot share the enthusiasm of the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr Grieve) for the expansion of the prison population which is envisaged in what he is advocating. Even the most enthusiastic advocates of growth do not want to see growth in the prison population.
I entirely agree with the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) and I strongly support his Amendment. Unless we have a mandatory requirement for the suspension of sentences, we should abolish the


suspended sentence altogether. The suspended sentence provides an opportunity for too many courts to seem to be tough and harsh while intending to be fairly lenient. The experience of almost everybody who practises in the courts is that many suspended sentences are imposed whereas a few years ago a fine or sentence of probation would have been imposed. A great many suspended sentences are imposed which would not have been imposed before 1968.
That is my subjective impression. Pages xl and xli of the Criminal Statistics for 1970 show that there was an immense increase in the number of people serving sentences of imprisonment from about 29,700 to 37,000 in two years—when previously there had been an increase of only 4,000—

Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Member agree that that reflects, not an increasing use of the prison sentence proportionately, but the fact that there are vastly increased numbers of offenders?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I cannot accept that. There has been an increase in the number of offenders, but there was a greater increase in the number of offenders between 1950 and 1968 than there was between 1968 and 1970 when the number of prison sentences rose much more proportionately.
As a consequence of the existence of the suspended sentence and the tendency to activate the suspended sentence on a further conviction, we are getting an increase in the prison population. This is common ground, and the hon. and learned Member agrees with me.

Mr. Grieve: Yes, I do.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: That the system of the suspended sentence is not working well is accepted by everybody concerned with the problem. But what is being proposed by the Government is the abolition of the highly desirable feature that the sentence must be suspended except in certain circumstances. In many cases it is open to the court to impose a longer sentence than six months and therefore to avoid the suspension if the court felt it was necessary.
The Government are dealing with the wrong aspect of the problem. I urge them to accept the Amendment and to review the way in which the suspended

sentence should be put into effect. The imposition of the suspended sentence in cases where the court would not have imposed it previously, and its automatic implementation on subsequent conviction, is leading to the expansion of the prison population in ways in which the courts, if they had been assessing the matter objectively, would not have wished.

Mr. Carlisle: I do not want to go over again all the ground we have covered in the past. What I want to say has been said far more eloquently and, in the context of the Bill, with a new voice tonight by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve).
I do not accept the arguments put forward by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), nor do I accept his criticism both during the Committee stage and tonight against the repeal of the mandatory provisions for suspended sentences. Like my hon. and learned Friend I too was present during the proceedings on the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, and like him I said at the time that while I was in favour of the principle of suspended sentences, I believed that the Government were completely wrong to include the mandatory provisions. I believed it then, and everything that has happened since has confirmed my view.
I accept entirely what my hon. and learned Friend said on the basic principle that the courts should be free to impose the sentences they believe to be right in all circumstances. Nothing is ever gained by fettering their discretion so that even in those cases where they think it appropriate, right and necessary, however regrettable, to impose a short sentence of imprisonment, they are nevertheless prevented from so doing. I say to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead that while all of us welcome the view that people should where possible be dealt with in ways other than by imprisonment, I cannot agree, as I said in Standing Committee, with what seems to be his argument that the only purpose of sentencing is to keep people away from prison.
The purposes of sentencing are to prevent an offender committing another offence, to express the abhorrence of society in a civilised manner at what has been done, and to obtain the reformation of the individual. These three


aims might well require courts at times to impose a sentence of imprisonment but the mandatory provisions would render them unable to do so.

Mr. Dell: I take it that the Minister of State has read the publication by the Home Office, "The Sentence of the Court", on how effective the sentence of imprisonment is in achieving those objectives he has just outlined, particularly short sentences of imprisonment?

Mr. Carlisle: Of course I have read it, and I repeat again that there are always likely to be cases where a court believes it to be its duty to impose an immediate sentence of imprisonment. It is unwise for us to fetter the discretion of the court to do so.
Therefore, I believe, as I have always believed, that the mandatory provisions are wrong and I am convinced that the Government are right to remove them. Other than the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and the converts he managed to achieve by his eloquence in the Standing Committee, I have heard hardly a single voice raised in defence of those provisions.
I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's figures. Like my hon. and learned Friend I feel that he has just clutched them out of the air. The right hon. Gentleman defeats his own argument when he says, "Let's say it was 15 per cent., and if it was 15 per cent. the figure comes to 2,000", because he then says, "Of course, I know that the same basis on which I have argued all the rest of my figures shows that the breach rate for those given suspended sentences is 40 per cent., but we shall not bother about them in this case", or "If it's 40 per cent. that only knocks it down from 2,000 to 1,200." That is substantially different to what he said in The Times, where he said it was estimated that 2,000 more people would enter prison as a result of the repeal of the mandatory provisions.
I have said all along that it is impossible to estimate what the effect will be. Clearly, it would be wrong for me not to concede, as I have always conceded, that if there are cases where the court thinks it appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment, which at present the courts are being prevented from doing

as a result of the mandatory provisions, there must initially be some increase in the number of those sentenced to imprisonment. But we cannot tell what the size of that increase will be, as we cannot say in how many of the cases now being suspended because of the mandatory provisions magistrates will continue to suspend because of the discretion they will have to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman wholly overlooks the effect of Clause 13, of implementing the O'Keefe provisions. If it be right, as all the figures show, that the number of people being sentenced to imprisonment—I use the term generally to mean both suspended and immediate—has substantially increased as a result of the passing of the 1967 Act, presumably the right hon. Gentleman will agree that if, as a result of the next Amendment which I shall move, the courts use the proper criteria when deciding whether to impose a sentence of imprisonment, the overall number being sentenced to imprisonment is likely to be reduced.
The right hon. Gentleman also overlooks the fact that he takes no consideration that there are people being sentenced to imprisonment today for more than six months merely because the mandatory provisions fail to allow the courts to give sentences of less than six months when they think they are appropriate. Yet the right hon. Gentleman knows that the magistrates, as they have said, have no doubt that there are cases where courts are committing to a higher court for sentence because they cannot give what they believe is the necessary and right sentence. Therefore, I do not accept the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's figures, though I accept that there will be some slight increase.
The right hon. Gentleman then fell into the complete fallacy of muddling up prison receptions, with prison population, and saying that increased prison receptions will increase the prison population. As he knows, it is estimated that, although the number of receptions may have gone down with suspended sentences, the population has not, because the sentences people are serving are longer.

Mr. Dell: I regret to have to say this to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has not read his own memorandum. When


I was connecting prison receptions and population I was quoting—I admit from memory, but I think verbatim—the words of his own memorandum, that there would be an increase in prison receptions and hence in prison population. If he has not studied this subject well enough to have read his own memorandum after the debates we have had, I must say I am surprised. I did not ignore the effect of Clause 13. If the hon. and learned Gentleman now tells the House that the enactment of O'Keefe, advocated from our side of the Committee, will have so valuable an effect on the prison population, why did he fight so vigorously in Committee against enacting O'Keefe?

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman does me less than credit, because I have looked at the memorandum and he has left out the vital word "immediate". It says:
The probable consequence of repeal of the mandatory provision will be some immediate increase in prison receptions, and, therefore, in prison population.
Of course, it is inevitable in the immediate term that there will be an increase in the prison population if we are right, but if he looks at the earlier part of the memorandum, he will see that when we talked about a saving, it was in reference to the prison population. Of course, there will be an increase in receptions in the immediate term, but—and I quote—
The size of the increase is hard to estimate because it is impossible to predict in how many cases, now caught by the mandatory provision, the courts will continue to suspend the sentence under their discretionary power.
We will not gain anything by arguing on the figures, because there is a principle here. The right hon. Gentleman believes in fettering the discretion of the court to pass what they consider the necessary sentence irrespective of previous convictions. I and the Government do not. Time after time I have said that we do not believe the courts should have to send to prison those they believe can be dealt with in a number of other ways, but the courts must have freedom to impose a sentence of imprisonment if they believe it necessary, looking at their task as a whole.

Sir Eiwyn Jones: I hope that the House will not think that my right hon.

Friend is the only one on this side who supports his point of view. That would be wrong.
We had the most invigorating debates on this in Committee, and it was the information and arguments of my right hon. Friend and the material provided for us in the memoranda from the Home Office which persuaded us that the step now proposed would be a backward step. It surprised me that the Minister of State speaks of the undesirability of fettering the discretion of courts. There are several examples of the Home Office introducing such fetters into the Bill. There is Clause 13—controls on imprisonment of fine defaulters; and on the length of sentence.
All these are measures reducing the discretion of courts. It is right that Parliament should impose such restrictions.
It may well be that if the precise amount of the increase in the prison population which is to result from what he proposes may not be capable of proof, one might have expected the Minister of State to give us at least some indication of what he estimates its size will be. That we should, at this stage, where the most critical element in the whole problem of the penal system is the inflation in the size of the prison population, be legislating to increase it, is intolerable, so it is astonishing that the Minister should so calmly be referring to an increase which might well amount to 2,000, as suggested by my right hon. Friend.
It may well be that suspended sentences have been used wrongly and contrary to the intention of Parliament by the court. But the effect of what the Government are doing is to increase the powers of the court to misuse the suspended sentences by taking away the limitations that the present law imposes. Let the House not forget that of course this restriction on magisterial power does not apply to the more serious offences—crimes of violence and so on are excluded. In the face of the evidence available to us that, for example, recidivism among offenders given mandatory suspended sentences is relatively low, and since, on the whole, the evidence is that, without harmful results to the community, the mandatory provision has kept out of prison many who would other-


wise have gone to prison, in our view this is a retrograde measure which we regret the Home Office is giving countenance to.

Question accordingly negatived.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 8, line 27, at end insert:
(3) An offender shall not be dealt with by means of a sentence of imprisonment suspended under section 39 of the said Act of 1967 unless the case appears to the court to be one in which a sentence of imprisonment would have been appropriate in the absence of any power to suspend such a sentence.
After that resounding victory, I hope that I may be allowed this amendment without further division.
The Amendment would put into legislative form the ruling in the case of O'Keefe, by providing that a court shall not pass a suspended sentence on an offender except where, but for the power to suspend, a sentence of immediate imprisonment would be appropriate.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 79.

Division No. 222.]
AYES
[2.40 a.m.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Kinnock, Neil



Concannon, J. D.
McNamara, J. Kevin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Mitchell, R. c. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Mr. Edmund Dell and


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Roper, John
Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann.


Gilbert, Dr. John
Whitehead, Phillip



NOES


Atkins, Humphrey
Hawkins, Paul
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Benyon, W.
Holt, Miss Mary
Sharples, Richard


Biggs-Davison, John
Hornby, Richard
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hunt, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Bray, Ronald
Kershaw, Anthony
Soref, Harold


Buck, Antony
Kinsey, J. R.
Stainton, Keith


Carlisle, Mark
Knox, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Chapman, Sydney
Lane, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Chichester-Clark, R.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sutcliffe, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Clegg, Walter
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Tebbit, Norman


Cooke, Robert
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Crouch, David
Mather, Carol
Trew, Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Drayson, G. B.
Moate, Roger
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eden, Sir John
Money, Ernie
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Eyre, Reginald
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Murton, Oscar
Ward, Dame Irene


Fortescue, Tim
Neave, Airey
Weatherill, Bernard


Fowler, Norman
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Fox, Marcus
Normanton, Tom
Winterton, Nicholas


Gardner, Edward
Percival, Ian
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhew, Victor
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis



Grieve, Percy
Redmond, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gummer. J. Selwyn
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Mr. Michael Jopling and


Gurden, Harold
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Mr. Hamish Grey.


Haselhurst, Alan




Havers, Michael

Mr. S. C. Silkin: We are glad that, even at this hour, the Government have seen the light.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

SUSPENDED SENTENCE SUPERVISION ORDERS

Mr. Dell: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 8, line 28, leave out Clause 11.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): I suggest that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following Amendments:

No. 21, in page 8, line 28, leave out from 'Where' to end of line 36 and insert
'a court sentences an offender for a single offence to imprisonment for a term of more


than six months and makes an order suspending the sentence under section 39(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967'.

No. 23, in page 8, line 28, leave out from 'court' to end of line 36 and insert:
'sentences an offender for one or more offences and the sentence passed in respect of at least one of such offences is imprisonment for a term of more than six months and makes an order suspending the sentence under section 39(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967'.

No. 24, in page 8, line 42, leave out' or sentences' and insert:
(2) The Secretary of State may by order—
(a) direct that subsection (1) above be amended by substituting, for the number of months specified in the subsection as originally enacted or as previously amended under this paragraph, such other number (not more than six) as the order may specify; or
(b) make in that subsection the repeals necessary to enable a court to exercise the powers of the subsection in the case of any suspended sentence, whatever the length of the term.
Orders under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament; and an order under paragraph (a) may be revoked by a subsequent order under paragraph (a) or (b).

No. 25, in page 10, line 3, after 'sentence', insert:
'(whether passed before or after the commencement of this Act)'.

No. 26, in page 10, line 43, after 'circumstances', insert:
'of the offence and of the offender, including a report by, and, if the court considers it necessary, the oral evidence of, a probation officer'.

Mr. Dell: I am grateful for the support of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) on the Amendment which we have just debated. On this matter, however, I think that I carry less support. None the less, I still feel, with deep respect to the distinguished authorities who have recommended this course, that the introduction of the suspended sentence supervision order is an error of judgment.
It was, I know, recommended by Lady Wootton's Committee. I have a deep respect for Lady Wootton personally, but I think that in this case she is wrong. As I said in Committee, I notice a remarkable contrast between the very tentative way in which this proposal is mentioned in paragraph 189 of the Wootton Report and the much firmer

way in which it is finally included in the summary of recommendations. In paragraph 189, it is said:
The matter will have to be further examined in the light of the operation of the suspended sentence introduced by the Criminal Justice Act, 1967".
But no further examination took place between paragraph 189 and the firm recommendations in paragraph 33 of the Conclusions. I believe that if that examination had taken place and the Committee had been aware of the way in which suspended sentences were being used by the courts, it might have hesitated much longer before recommending the suspended sentence supervision order.
Since I expressed a similar view in Committee, I have been reinforced in my opposition to this proposal by the experience of meeting a large number of probation officers, who were virtually unanimously against it.
I summarise the arguments in this way. The effect of introducing supervision orders will be to increase the tendency to use suspended sentences instead of probation. That tendency has already existed to far too great an extent, and the fact that there is now this opportunity, in effect, to combine a suspended sentence with a probation order will lead the courts to use suspended sentences even more than before instead of probation.
I believe that it will be regarded as a tougher suspended sentence and will be overused. We shall find that we are dealing not with a sentence of imprisonment which is suspended and combined with a supervision order, but with a new sentence known as the suspended sentence supervision order which will take its place in the tariff of penalties and will be greatly overused.
As many probation officers say and as was said at the meeting to which I have referred, if the offender needs guidance and supervision the best course is to put him on probation. The courts then have on reconviction a degree of discretion which they do not have when an offender comes up having committed another offence after being given a suspended sentence.
I fear that what may happen is that we shall have many suspended sentence supervision orders, that the probation officer will not have a chance to achieve


anything with the offender, and that many people will begin to say that probation has failed when the truth will be that it has never had a chance.
If this proposal is to be introduced, at least there should be greater safeguards than are included in the Clause, to discourage the courts from using the supervision order instead of probation, and I take little comfort from the fact that it is intended now to confine the supervision order to the higher courts. The higher courts have used the suspended sentence instead of probation to an extent greater even than magistrates courts.
There should be a requirement for the consent of the offender. That again was a point made by probation officers, who feel that they will have allotted to them people who are unwilling and who will not co-operate with them in the work that they wish to do.
I believe that there is a need for the court to consider a report by the probation officer about the offender and his circumstances, and, if necessary, to hear a probation officer before awarding a suspended sentence supervision order.
These at any rate would be safeguards against the michief which may be done by the introduction of the supervision order. If they were introduced, I should be less unhappy and, more important, many probation officers would be less unhappy about this proposal, Even with such safeguards I would continue to believe that it is a thoroughly bad proposal, and it is for that reason that I move the Amendment.

Mr. Carlisle: With his usual consistency, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) has opposed this provision throughout our proceedings on the Bill, although, as he knows, the view of the Government is that it is right to accept the recommendation in the Wootton Report that there are certain cases where it is appropriate to have the power to combine a supervision order with a suspended sentence.
For reasons which I advanced in Committee, I cannot go along with the right hon. Gentleman. But, with his Amendment since we are taking two Government Amendments, Nos. 21 and 24, perhaps I might say to him that as a result of our debate in Committee I agreed to

look again at how wide the power to make a suspended sentence supervision order was.
Although the right hon. Gentleman says, and I accept it, that at the meeting to which he went he found almost unanimity in opposition to the suspended sentence, I think I am right in saying that at the time of our debates in Committee the official position of the National Association of Probation Officers was not that it was in any way opposed in principle to this, but that it was concerned about whether the power might be unduly widely used and there for increase the case load on probation officers.
In Committee I agreed to put down this Amendment, the effect of which is in the first place to limit the power almost to the higher courts—to limit it, to those cases in which the suspended sentence is one of more than six months, and by Amendment No. 24, to give to the Home Secretary the power to make an order—the order being subject to annulment—to lower the level of six months when he has seen the effect of the suspended sentence supervision order; whether it is used effectively by the courts, and whether there are adequate resources in the probation service to make it available in cases where the sentence of imprisonment is less than six months without putting undue pressure on these resources. I hope that the House will agree to Amendments Nos. 21 and 24.
I understand that we are also taking Amendment No. 25. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I have agreed to consider the Amendment. I misguidedly spoke against it in Committee, on the basis that it would be inappropriateto have the power to impose a condition on a suspended sentence order, that is, a supervision order on a suspended sentence, where there had been a breach of suspended sentence, because it would impose a graver penalty than was at first imposed.
On reflection, that argument must be wrong because, if a court added to a suspended sentence order, or continued a suspended sentence, it would be doing that in place of its power otherwise to activiate the suspended sentence, and clearly the sentence together with the supervision order must be less in gravity


than the actual term of imprisonment served. My argument that it would appear to be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights was fallacious, and in those circumstances I am prepared to accept the spirit of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment. I have, however, regretfully to tell him that the Amendment does not quite meet its task as drafted, but shall look at it before the Bill reaches another place.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am grateful to the Minister for his undertaking about Amendment No. 25.
On Amendment No. 20, while my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) has rightly said that he does not enjoy the support of his Front Bench in his wish to remove the Clause, none the less I assure him that we shall want to watch extremely closely how the new power works in practice. It is a power which is really a combination of the suspended sentence with probation, though called by another name, and it is therefore a departure from the previous thinking of the probation service.
We shall want to assure ourselves that the use of this power does not impose too great a burden on the service, and that it is used in the way that it ought to be used and does not suffer the fate which, to some degree, the suspended sentence has suffered by improper use.

3.0 a.m.

That leaves only two Amendments in the group which have not been dealt with and about which I should comment, or at least comment on one of them, Amendment No. 23. As the Minister will appreciate, Amendment No. 23 is purely a drafting Amendment. I do not wish to take up the time of the House in arguing it at this stage. We have doubts as to the term "a single offence", which we think might be misconstrued. The purpose of the Amendment is to re-word a Government Amendment in a way which would remove all possible doubt.

At three o'clock in the morning, all that I ask of the Minister is that he should look at it and satisfy himself as to whether his wording is adequate or whether ours might not be preferable.

Although grouped with this particular group, Amendment No. 26 is more in the spirit of Amendment No. 22, which

will be moved in due course. Therefore, it would be appropriate for me to leave to my hon. Friend whatever is to be said about it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 8, line 28, leave out from 'Where' to end of line 36 and insert:
a court sentences an offender for a single offence to imprisonment for a term of more than six months and makes an order suspending the sentence under section 39(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 19677".—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 8, line 28, leave out from 'court' to end of line 36 and insert:
', having considered a report by a probation officer about an offender and his circumstances (and, if the court thinks it necessary, having heard a probation officer), and being satisfied that it is necessary to impose a sentence of imprisonment, sentences the offender for one or more offences so that the sentences passed in respect of at least one of the offences is imprisonment for a term of more than six months and the court makes an order suspending the sentence under Section 39(1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967'.
The point of the Amendment is that the court will consider a report made by a probation officer and, if necessary, hear him before deciding on a suspended sentence supervision order. The reasons for this are partly those mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), when he made it clear that there should be a limitation of use of the suspended sentence supervision order. This might go rather wider than envisaged by the Wootton Report or by the Minister of State in Committee. The Wootton Report made it clear that there was a limited number of cases for which this would be appropriate. In Committee, the Minister of State said:
There is, of course, no basis upon which one could estimate the proportion of sentences of over six months where the courts will use their new power, but I emphasise that we do not intend it to be used as a matter of course and that we only expect such an order to be made when, in the opinion of the court, the individual circumstances justify it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 25th January, 1972; c. 363.]
The point of the Amendment is that it is much easier for a court to consider the individual circumstances if it has first considered a report by a probation officer. In view of the very considerable


burdens laid upon the probation service by the Clause, and as a probation officer will be the supervising officer and, in addition, will have certain requirements to make reports following such a supervision order, we consider that it would be fairly straightforward for the Government to accept this relatively limited Amendment. It may assist in getting courts to use the new powers as was intended by the Wootton Report and accepted by the Minister of State.

Mr. Carlisle:: As the hon. Lady says, the effect of the Amendment would be to provide that the court should consider a social inquiry report before making a supervision order. We envisage that in practice this would be so, because at present, in putting someone on probation, the higher courts are not bound to have a report from a probation officer. However, although there is no statutory requirement that they should consider a social inquiry report, we have no doubt that they always do. Indeed, the view expressed by the Departmental Committee on the Probation Service—the Morrison Committee—that a social inquiry report should normally be obtained before a probation order is made has been brought to their attention.
I am prepared to consider whether it is suitable that similar notice should be given to the courts with regard to suspended sentence supervision orders. I accept that, if we draw to the attention of the courts the appropriateness of their considering a social inquiry report before making a probation order, it would be right to do so with regard to the making of a suspended sentence supervision order. I should not have thought that it was necessary to write it into statutory form. I am prepared to consider whether I can meet the hon. Lady's point in any other way.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In view of that reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No 24, in page 8, line 42, leave out 'or sentences' and insert:
(2) The Secretary of State may by order—
(a) direct that subsection (1) above be amended by substituting, for the num-

ber of months specified in the subsection as originally enacted or as previously amended under this paragraph, such other number (not more than six) as the order may specify; or
(b) make in that subsection the repeals necessary to enable a court to exercise the powers of the subsection in the case of any suspended sentence, whatever the length of the term.
Orders under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament; and an order under paragraph (a) may be revoked by a subsequent order under paragraph (a) or (b).—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Clause 14

COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS IN RESPECT OF CONVICTED PERSONS

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 11, line 32, leave out 'less than forty or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this Amendment we are to take Amendment No. 28, in page 11, line 33, leave out 'two hundred and forty' and insert 'one hundred and twenty'.

Mr. Fraser: The Clause introduces the concept of the community service order which I regard as an exciting and constructive development in non-custodial treatment. I deliberately use the word "treatment" instead of "punishment" or "sentence", because I hope that the order for community service will be of value to the offender and to the community.
The Advisory Committee which recommended this change was not dogmatic about the philosophy of the community service order. The committee spelt out some of its attractions. It was cheaper and more constructive than prison. It emphasised reparation to the community. It was a way
of fitting the punishment to the crime",
although I disagree with the use of the word "punishment" in this context. The committee said that the community service order would bring offenders in touch with those that provided help and support to the community.
I think that the attractions of the community service order are that community service should enable the offender to win approval for his service. The problem


with offenders often is that they have been unable to win approval from the community around them. This new concept will be useful, because it will enable them to make reparation alongside volunteers who are not themselves offenders, and there will be the benefit of example. Finally, the community service order enables the offender to make reparation in an atmosphere of co-operation with the community and not in confrontation with authority. The problem with many offenders, once again, is that they are alienated from authority; and if an attempt is made to bring about a reconciliation this means an attempt being made by the offender as well as by authority.
The Advisory Committee stressed the experimental nature of the proposals. However, there were things which the committee did not recommend which appear in the Bill. First, the advisory committee did not recommend any minimum number of hours of service, whereas a minimum of 40 appears in the Bill. Second, the committee did not recommend a maximum period of 240 hours as appears in the Bill; it recommended a maximum of 120 hours.
The Amendment would bring the proposals in the Clause into line with those of the Advisory Committee. The Amendment is important for this reason. This is in essence an experiment. We do not know how it will work out. It therefore seems unnecessary, and perhaps dangerous, to fetter the discretion of the courts by prescribing a minimum period.
Let us assume the case of a young offender who lives by the seaside—perhaps a "bovver boy" who has caused some trouble on a Sunday afternoon. Let us assume that by coincidence an oil slick is on the beach of his sea-side town. A form of community service, which might only take 10 hours, would be working with volunteers to clear that oil slick from the beach. That would be taking part in doing something for his own community, perhaps over a short period of time, which would be directly relevant. However, if there is a minimum of 40 hours that would not be possible.
Let us take another example. The graffiti specialists that come before the courts could do something about community facilities such as street furniture and so on. Perhaps a short period spent

in that direction might fit in well with what they did wrong in the first place.
There is the danger of setting a maximum target. If the period is too long it may be too hard and the idea of a community service in co-operation with others could break down. Any of us who have had anything to do with working in the community are aware of the fact there is a fairly high drop off rate even among volunteers. There is a danger if one has 240 hours as a maximum of a drop-off and having the offender exposed to failure. It may be that such exposure is the one thing that brought him into the court in the first place.
Although we welcome the experiment wholeheartedly, we want to see it enacted in the spirit recommended by the Advisory Committee. I will put some wider reasons for putting forward the Amendment. I say quite firmly that the Community Service Order must not be regarded as a punishment. It will be a method of disposal of an offender and it must not be something which we rationalise afterwards. It must not turn out to be something like prison to which we ascribe the qualities of punishment, deterrent, retribution, rehabilitation, education, training, medical attention and diagnosis. One would have thought that, with all those qualities, imprisonment was something invented by the director of the Carbolic Smoke ball Company. For something which has so many qualities it is remarkably unsuccessful. We do not want this form of disposal to be one that is rationalised afterwards. We want it to be not a form of punishment but a way of integrating the offender with the community against which he has offended.
There is a danger that if this form of treatment is regarded as a punishment it will have a kind of chain gang image which will stigmatise not only the offender but also community work and then volunteer workers who would otherwise co-operate in this kind of venture. It is something to be seen as a method of co-operation. It might be such work as clearing canals, decorating old peoples' homes, hospital visits, organising summer projects in deprived areas or organising play-groups—all things which can work only in an atmosphere of co-operation and not coercion. One wants to avoid the idea that it will stigmatise the work itself or the persons participating, whether


they be former offenders or volunteers from the community.
Therefore, to ensure that the possibilities are varied and that the offender learns from experience and not from indoctrination, I hope that this Amendment will be accepted. It will have a legal framework in which the right kind of experience can be enjoyed, and at the same time it will be useful to the offender and the community. If it is too rigid, if there is too great a maximum, and a rigid minimum, that experience may not be conveyed and we shall be back to that which we want to avoid, the unsuccessful path of many other forms of punishment.

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I cannot understand what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) means by his continual repetition of the phrase, "It must not be looked upon as a punishment". Any sentence imposed by a court is clearly a punishment. The hon. Gentleman may say that punishments have different ends and aims. Punishment may be to deter, to reform, or to achieve various ends, but it is still punishment. I am sure that the individual who receives an order, although he may consent, will look upon it as a punishment.
I think the Wootton Report used the word "punishment", or it may be a word I have picked up from our proceedings on the Bill. However, one of its characteristics was the deprivation of liberty as a means of punishment, or words to that effect. Certainly an individual who is required to give up his spare time to work under a community service order will look upon it as a punishment.
It may be that I am wrong in suggesting the word "punishment" appears anywhere in the Wootton Report. However, if this form of order is to be used widely by the courts, the public as a whole will require it to be looked upon as a punishment to the extent it believes that some penalty shall be imposed on an individual who has done wrong.

Mr. John Fraser: The Wootton Report used the word "punitive". Although the report said that it hoped offenders required to perform community service would see it in this light and not as wholly negative and punitive, we cannot

escape the tact that there is some element of coercion involved because it is a choice against some other penalty. I want to emphasise that the spirit of co-operation with the community is important and the work should not be stigmatised.

Mr. Carlisle: I accept that the purpose behind the whole idea of community service is depriving an individual of his leisure rather than of his liberty. One principle behind it is that the court shall have power to make use of deprivation of leisure rather than having to deprive a man of his total liberty as such. I accept also the point about stigmatisation attaching to the work that is to be done.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Amendment is designed to bring the hours into line with those recommended in the Wootton Report.
The 40-hour minimum was recommended to the Home Office by the working group which was set up within the Home Office to consider the relevant practicability of the Wootton proposals on the basis that, if it were to be a penalty, a sentence, to use a completely neutral word, a method of disposal available to the courts for offences which otherwise would be punishable by imprisonment, to impose a period of less than 40 hours might be felt to be derisory.
The decision to raise the maximum from 120to 240 hours was to give greater flexibility so that, should we find that this new form of penalty is widely used by the courts and cases arise where they wish to impose a longer period than the maximum of 120 hours, they would be allowed to do so.
I should point out that subsection (6) specifically gives power to the Secretary of State
to direct that subsection (1) of this section shall be amended by substituting for the maximum number of hours…such number of hours as may be specified in the order".
If in practice it is found that 240 hours is wholly and unnecessarily excessive, the Home Secretary of the day would have power to consider making use of that provision. I repeat, I realise it is not in accordance with the recommendations of the Wootton Committee, which recommended a maximum of 120 hours; but it is being done deliberately to give the widest degree of flexibility to the courts in the hope they will come to look upon


this method of disposal as suitably adequate for otherwise imposing a period of imprisonment. That is why the figures have been put in. It is in many ways a matter of judgment. Strangely enough, it was not queried in Committee, though I had imagined it would be.

Mr. John Fraser: We do not intend to flex our muscles again with a Division, but I cannot say that we are satisfied with the Minister's explanation.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 16

BREACH OF REQUIREMENTS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDER

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 14, line 14, after 'may' insert:
either—
(i) without prejudice to the continuance of the order, impose on him a fine not exceeding £50, or
(ii)'.
The effect of the Amendment is to enable the Crown Court dealing with an offender for breach of the requirements of a community service order to impose on him a fine of up to £50, without prejudice to the continuance of the order. The Clause already empowers the court in such circumstances to revoke the order and to deal with the offender afresh for the original offence, and the Amendment makes available an alternative course of action.
The Amendment implements an undertaking which I gave in Committee after attention had been drawn, I suspect by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) or the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), to the disparity between the powers available to the magistrates' court and to the Crown court when dealing with an offender for breach of requirements.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19

PROBATION ORDERS REQUIRING ATTENDANCE AT DAY TRAINING CENTRE

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 17, line 12, leave out 'sixty' and insert 'one hundred and twenty'.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) spoke with enthusiasm about the provisions of Clause 14, though he would have wished them to be more flexible. I can speak with equal enthusiasm about the provisions of Clause 19. What I am not enthused about is the very little attention which this important new weapon in the armoury of the courts has received. The Secretary of State, on Second Reading, spoke extremely briefly about it. We tabled no Amendments to the Clause in Committee largely because we knew very little about it and that was mainly because the Secretary of State had said very little about it on Second Reading. We began to learn what was involved when the Minister explained its purpose a debate on the Clause which lasted less than an hour. That was a great pity.
It is an even greater pity that we should be considering this matter at this hour and with a small attendance of Members because it concerns an important new provision. I can safely say that it is not a punishment because it is a provision which enables a condition to be made on a probation order to which the probationer will have to consent before the condition is made. It enables the court when a probation order is made, to require that the probationer shall attend a day training centre for not more than 60 days.
This could be an extremely valuable provision. What is highly uncertain is for whom the Government intend it. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that it was
…an experiment designed to deal with people who are persistent offenders because they cannot cope with the complexities of present-day life. Instead of being shut up in prison, they will have treatment at a day centre which will in one way or another help them cope with the problems which they will have to face."—[Official Report, 22nd November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 974.]
At one stage in his remarks he spoke about the purpose of these provisions as being to assist the inadequate recidivist, which certainly gave the impression of a man not younger than in his middle thirties, who had been going back to prison repeatedly. This was consistent with the Secretary of State's observations. But at another point the Minister of State referred to the experiences of tutor


organisers in detention centres who found that
even in a period of two months, much can be done to increase the reading and writing age of a chap of 18 or so, by an intensive course of remedial education."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 10th February, 1972; c. 530.]
At another stage in his remarks he appeared to have in mind young people as well as inadequate recidivists of the type described by the Secretary of State. It is a pity the Government do not seem to be wholly clear about the purpose of the provision, the more so because it was a proposal, or at least very similar to a proposal, which was rejected by the Wootton Committee, although the Home Office Working Party on Probation gave strong support to it. There is, therefore, a difference of view as to its value. This may well be reflected in the apparent uncertainty as to whom it should provide for.
The main point I wish to make, which is the subject matter of the Amendment, is whether it is the type of treatment which could be suitable, as the Minister of State said, for
the socially inadequate petty recidivist—the sort of person who has a bad work record, who repeatedly returns to prison for minor crimes, and who basically is socially incapable, when left on his own, of coping in society without getting involved in petty crime."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G 10th February, 1972; c. 530.]
It is obvious the Minister is not thinking of the young man. But what if he is thinking of the young man of 18 or so, who could undergo an intensive course of remedial education which would make him literate and give him some training in the social requirements of life, enabling him to meet his inadequacies, particularly assisting him to lead a normal life in society, and to get and hold a job, which is very necessary for many of the young people who come before the courts?
Regardless of for which of these two categories the treatment is suitable, a period of 60 days as a maximum, seems extremely low. It may be that some people who are wholly illiterate can be made literate in a period of 60 days. That would be an exceptional situation. But to think that we can do a great deal in 60 days for many people of the petty recidivist type, or those who at an early

age have become rebels against society and have not benefited from such education as society has given them, is optimistic in the extreme.

3.30 a.m.

When this point was put to the Minister during the very short debate in Committee—he may have been taken a little by surprise—his answer was that we could not expect people to accept more than about 60 days if it involved taking them away from their employment. Yet many of the people whom he was considering were people about whom the assumption is that they are unemployed at the time. Elsewhere, the assumption is made that they are the type of person who cannot settle down to a job, who had a bad work record and so on, that they are people in respect of whom the answer that it would be wrong to seek to keep them away from paid employment for more than 60 days does not seem a very acceptable reason for this maximum.

I do not suggest that a maximum of 120 days would mean that in every case the court would seek to persuade the probationer to accept a period of four months rather than two, or six rather than three. What I do suggest is that there will be many cases in which the court will feel that the man is one who might well benefit from as much as six months' training, but who is highly unlikely to benefit from as little as 60 days. In those cases the court would have the degree of flexibility which the Minister lauded in another connection and be able to seek to make the requirement, with the consent of the probationer, of training for the longer period rather than the shorter.

This is a very important new provision, and it is important that it should succeed. It is to be introduced by way of experiment in a small number of areas to begin with, with a view to extending it later. If it is to succeed, it is much more important that fewer people should have that degree of longer training which is more likely to succeed than that more people should have a shorter period of training which is less likely to succeed. That is the whole basis of our seeking to increase the maximum period to 120 days from the present 60, which as a maximum we feel to be unnecessarily short.

If it were found, in the light of experience, our Amendment having been


accepted, that the period of 120 days was an unduly large maximum, the Government could no doubt alter it. I do not know whether they have taken powers to alter it, but such powers could be introduced in another place if necessary.

I seriously suggest to the Minister that the Government would be well advised to leave themselves more elbow room in relation to this new experiment and not to risk prejudicing the chances of success at the beginning by setting too low a minimum, and that they can achieve that by accepting this Amendment.

Mr. Carlisle: I do not think that there was necessarily anything inconsistent in what I said in Committee. I envisage the probation day centre as being available for the inadequate offender in need of training, either remedial educational, or general, and the only thing I should have added was that "offender" would be better than "recidivist". The hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that today one can have a young inadequate recidivist as well as an elderly inadequate recidivist.
This will be a full-time requirement to attend during the day and it was felt that in the circumstances, 60 days, equivalent to three working months, was adequate.
On the question of literacy, experience in borstals and detention centres and some prisons shows that there has been progress in minimal literacy standards in two months.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Even though that be so, it is only a beginning.

Mr. Carlisle: Yes. I was going on to say that I therefore envisage, and the Government envisage, that it is unlikely that the maximum period at a training centre would be longer than 60 days, but I am advised that the Amendment is unnecessary because, by reason of Clause 19(5), in cases in which it would be appropriate for a person to attend for more than 60 days, the court would have the power to amend the probation order. I am advised that by saying that this was an additional condition—to attend at day training centre—120 days could be given, as the hon. and learned Gentleman requested, but it means that it would have to be in two lots of 60 days and that there would have to be an application

back to the court to extend the period of training.
This is full-time day training and since 60 days is the equivalent of three working months, it is not unreasonable that where probation officers feel that it would be valuable to extend the period of training, in conditions of that degree of harshness, they should apply back to the court to extend it.
While I am on my feet, may I correct a disastrous remark I made when I was explaining the type of course which I envisaged—simple tools, carpentry, redecorating, basic maintenance and so on. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) said:
It sounds as though we could all do with a course of that".
—and I am quoted as saying
I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that my wife, in particular, could do with a more than 60 days' course"—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 10th February, 1971, c. 533.]
What I meant to say was: "I am sure that my wife would say that I in particular could do with a course of more than 60 days."

Sir Elwyn Jones: I give the hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance that I shall not inform his lady wife of this gross indiscretion on his part.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I thought the Minister of State was going to help us when he referred to Clause 5, but it would probably exacerbate the situation because, if someone initially is given some conditions which have to be fulfilled and knows that he has some 60 days maximum to get through, then he may be reasonably motivated in that time and has some date by which he knows he will be released. If towards the end of that time one says, "We think you should have another 60 days", I think the effect would be disastrous.
We are all human and we all work to targets of various sorts. I can remember the extreme bitterness and resentment that I felt as a National Service man when the Government of the day extended the period by three months because of international difficulties. We had all accepted that we had a certain amount of service


to do and the realisation that the Government had extended the period caused bitterness and resentment, although we saw the reason for it. We see these things in personal terms.
We are attempting here to create a new structure of human relations with people who are inadequate in society. We say of these people that they are inadequate and cannot cope with our increasingly complex and sophisticated society. But what is also inadequate is the education system which they have passed through and from which they have seemingly got no benefit. We have seen that the Schools Council is increasingly disquieted at the specialism in secondary schools, and there is need to broaden the secondary syllabus. The emphasis on the subject syllabus in secondary schools is one of the reasons why some of these people find themselves in aposition where they cannot cope with society and so come into the category of those we are talking about here.
With these people there is need to clear away years of repeated failure in various aspects, of failing to grapple with things such as literacy. Our society puts a tremendous premium on literacy, which is only one fairly narrow aspect of human achievement. When they come into the sort of supervision envisaged here, there is often not only need for a massive restructuring job in their whole approach to life but also the need to give them a chance to establish warm human relationships with people sympathetic to them.
I feel that this maximum of 120 days would give those in charge more of an opportunity to motivate these people into some form of self-help without which all the efforts at remedial work are wasted. Would it not be possible, under subsection (8), which says
References in this section to attendance at a day training centre include references to attendance elsewhere….
and so on, to include, say, attendance at work, where they could go under inspection so that there would not necessarily be a total separation from work? One might even envisage some form of day release for a day or two a week over a continuing period of time. This is a maximum. Many people would probably receive substantial benefit from

shorter periods, but this is one area where greater flexibility would pay handsome dividends.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 22

POWER TO DEPRIVE OFFENDER OF PROPERTY USED, OR INTENDED FOR USE, FOR PURPOSES OF CRIME

3.45 a.m.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 19, line 17, after 'control', insert:
'or over which he had any right of possession or control'.
It might be for the convenience of the House to discuss with this Amendment Amendments Nos. 43, in line 35, [Clause 22], leave out from beginning to 'unless' in line 36, and No. 44, in line 41 at end insert
and
(b) no such application shall succeed if the court is satisfied that the claimant either knew, or had reason to suspect, that the property was likely to be used for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) of this section and, in either case, that the claimant consented to the offender having possession of the property'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is the will of the House, yes.

Mrs. Williams: These three Amendments relate to the Clause which concerns the forfeiture of property. The purpose of Amendment No. 31 is to simplify the situation which the court will have to decide. The court might be in some difficulty in deciding who had possession of or control over certain property, and the Amendment extends the Clause to read:
or over which he had any right of possession or control".
The purpose is to enable the court to establish more easily the relationship of the offender to the property in question.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 is to alter the burden of proof with regard to an application to the court for property to be restored. Clause 22(3)(b) puts the burden of proof heavily upon the claimant, and in many cases it might be difficult for the claimant to


establish a legitimate claim to the property in question.
We had in mind two cases, one of which was mentioned briefly in Committee and the other hardly mentioned at all. The one briefly mentioned was of a firm which had entered into a hire-purchase contract with the offender where the six months' limit imposed was so brief as to make it the more difficult for the claimant to establish his claim, granted that the present reading of the Clause is that no application will succeed unless the claimant satisfies the court. The Amendment changes the burden of proof so that it would succeed unless the court was satisfied that the claimant either had known or had reason to suspect that the property was likely to be used for the furtherance of the offence.
In Committee the Minister of State referred frequently to the kind of property that he had in mind as being likely to be forfeited—jemmies, sharp knives and similar items. Later he said:
Of course the purpose of the Clause is to strengthen the power of the courts to deprive an offender of property which is held with the intention of committing a crime, so as to be more effective in the prevention of crime. It is harsher, it is stronger and it is to be welcomed for that purpose."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 15th February, 1972; c. 570.]
I do not know what is the market price of a jemmy, but the market price of knives to be sharpened is fairly low. It is hard to believe that this of itself would create a great additional disincentive to crime.
When the Minister of State said this he may have had in mind more substantial property of the kind mentioned in Committee. Two pieces of property were frequently mentioned. One was the motor car, described by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) as not being manufactured for the purpose of illegality. Those hon. Members who watch what happens on motorways might question that, but he was clearly right. The other piece of property which was mentioned, the forfeiture of which might be regarded as heavily disincentive was a house. The Minister of State gave the example of the great train robbers, but does he think it conceivable that a house used by a

fence for the purpose of storing stolen property might be able to be forfeited in this way?
There is a case which was not debated in Committee which is a significant one. Many cars and most houses have been paid for by the joint contributions of husband and wife. It is often said that the family of an offender suffers even more than an offender, and most of us would accept that that is so. Where a car or, a fortiori, a house is in the joint ownership of man and wife, I am not sure from the words of the Clause as drafted whether the wife would have any right at all under subsection (3)(b) to claim in the courts against the forfeiture of such property.
Clearly, if she had no such right, or if the burden of proof were to fall heavily upon the claimant so that it was difficult for her to establish her claim, in many cases the family of the offender would suffer far more than the offender himself. This would be especially so in the case of a motor car, because the offender, being in custody, would not in any case be likely to benefit from the use of it even if it were not forfeited.
I put the matter to the Minister of State largely as a probing question. Will he reconsider whether the burden of proof should lie as proposed in our Amendment, so that it would be for the court to be satisfied about the claimant's responsibility for what might be regarded as being virtually an accomplice in crime, rather than be so heavily on the claimant to show that he or she was in no way involved in the crime, a burden which a member of the accused's family might find very difficult to discharge.

Mr. Carlisle: Until the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) explained it, I was a little at a loss to understand the precise purpose of these Amendments.
I take, first, Amendment No. 31. I am advised that, so far as we can see, the proposed words would add nothing to the Clause as drafted. The present phrase is,
any property which was in his possession or under his control at the time of his apprehension".
If he had, in the words of the Amendment,
any right of possession or control",


the property, I think I am right in saying, would be under his control in law. However, I am quite prepared to look at it to satisfy myself, and those who advise me, that that is so.
On the other two Amendments, the hon. Lady has introduced her ingenious argument about the house and the wife. I am reminded that it was suggested in Committee that Clause 22 could cover a house, but I do not think that it is seriously envisaged as likely that the court would make an order forfeiting a house where, for example, someone had been keeping stolen goods, although I concede that, from an immediate reading of the Clause, it would appear that the power is there. I think it most unlikely that that would be done, particularly if the court knew that there were rights of third parties involved, such as the right of the wife to the house.
In the circumstances, having in mind the type of articles likely to be forfeited, we felt it appropriate to put the burden of proof firmly on the person claiming the property back to show that he either had not consented to the offender having it or that he did not know the purpose for which he was intending to use it, that purpose being, in the nature of things, a serious criminal matter for the property to be subject to forfeiture.
However, I am prepared to ask those who advise me to consider what the hon. Lady said and satisfy themselves that there is no danger of this power being used in a way which would wrongly interfere with the rights of third parties. I do not believe that there is any such danger, but I am prepared to look at it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 29

REFERENCE TO COURT OF APPEAL OF POINT OF LAW ARISING IN TRIAL ON INDICTMENT WHERE ACCUSED HAS BEEN ACQUITTED

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 23, line 27, leave out subsections (5) to (7) and insert:
(5) Where, on a point being referred to the Court of Appeal under this section or further referred to the House of Lords, the acquitted person appears by counsel for the purpose of presenting any argument to the court or the

House, he shall be entitled to his costs, that is to say to the payment out of central funds of such sums as are reasonably sufficient to compensate him for expenses properly incurred by him for the purpose of being represented on the reference or further reference; and any amount recoverable under this subsection shall be ascertained, as soon as practicable, by the registrar of criminal appeals or, as the case may be, such officer as may be prescribed by order of the House of Lords.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Clause 32

POWER OF MAGISTRATES' COURT TO RE-OPEN CASES TO RECTIFY MISTAKES ETC.

Amendments made: No. 34, in page 25, line 17, after 'only' insert ' (a)'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

No. 35, in line 20, at end insert:
'or
(b) where that court comprised three or more justices of the peace, by a court which consists of or comprises a majority of those justices'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Clause 56

SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 35, line 41, leave out 'to 24 and' and insert:
'23, 24, (Possession of firearms by persons convicted of crime in Northern Ireland), 25'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1

CRIMINAL BANKRUPTCY ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 37, in page 36, line 27, leave out from second 'the' to 'and' in line 29 and insert:
'loss or damage did not in fact result from any offence specified in the order'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 42, line 26, at end insert:
(aa) in section 53, after subsection (2), there shall be inserted:—
' (2A) Where an application under this section is made by the probation officer, it


may be heard in the absence of the probationer if the officer produces to the court a statement by him that he understands the effect of an order under this section and consents to the application being made.';
(aaa) in section 60(2) the words 'between conviction and sentence' shall be omitted.—

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3

REPEALS

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in page 45, line 45, column 3, at end insert:
In section 60(2), the words 'between conviction and sentence'.
This Amendment is of a fairly major character in that it meets the undertaking given in Committee to ensure that time spent in custody before conviction shall in future count towards the calculation of a parole eligibility date, which until now it has not done.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Title

Amendment made: No. 40, in the Title, line 1, leave out from beginning to second 'and' in line 20 and insert:
'Make further provision with respect to the administration of criminal justice, the criminal courts and the penal system, and to the methods of dealing with offenders (including the provision of new methods); to increase the penalties for certain offences and amend section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968 and section 9 of the Public Order Act 1936'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

3.58 a.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: We cannot allow this Bill to leave the House without first acknowledging the valuable contribution which has been made through every stage of our consideration by the Minister of State. We are grateful to him for his patient listening and his occasional agreement to accede to some of our proposals.
For my part, I want also to express my gratitude for the outstanding participation of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. Silkin), and my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), whose

ringing tones on suspended sentences will echo in our ears for many a day.
We on this side of the House welcomed and supported the Bill, while we subjected it to close examination. Its principal provisions have been based on the Widgery and Wootton Reports. In that connection, I want to make it clear that anything that I said, when we were discussing life imprisonment, about the Criminal Law Revision Committee and its work was in no sense intended to underestimate the immense value of the work of that committee or to suggest that it was in any way laggard or remiss in its dedication to the task that it voluntarily undertakes.
So far as the Bill reflects the approach of keeping out of prison those whom protection of the public does not require them to be there, we welcome it. The provision for community service orders is perhaps the most hopeful feature but, like the provision for day training centres which is also welcome, its success will be dependent on the resources that the Government make available to make them work. The portents that they will be ample enough are by no means certain. However, we shall keep a watchful eye.
Where the Bill falls short is in failing to take effective steps to end the roaring inflation in the number of prisoners now overcrowding our prisons. I make no apology at this hour for repeating again the words of Lord Justice Lawton:
Loss of liberty is an inappropriate, useless and expensive sanction for about three-quarters of those who now find themselves in custody.
At the end of the day, partly because of the abolition of the mandatory provision with regard to suspended sentences, the dismal prospect is that the prison population may well be larger than it is now, and it cannot be ruled out that the Bill will aggravate instead of remedying the present crisis in prison administration which has been illustrated by the recent troubles at Brixton.
Equally disappointing is the failure of the Bill to tackle the deplorable state of the law and practice with regard to bail and custody.
However, having said that, while I am bound to say that the Bill does not rank in significance with the major Criminal Justice Bills of this century, we welcome it so far as it goes.

Mr. Dell: This is the first Criminal Justice Bill with which I have ever had any contact in Committee.
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) for his kind remarks about myself. May I say, especially in view of what was said earlier, that throughout the Bill I have found the company of lawyers entirely tolerable. Indeed, I have found among lawyers, at any rate on my side of the House, a remarkable capacity to be convinced by the evidence.
The Minister of State has listened to me courteously but has, unfortunately, been too infrequently convinced. In Committee I put forward an idea about the way in which the community service order should be administered. The hon. and learned Gentleman found that controversial and thought that it was unlikely to be accepted. I understand that since then, in some wise legal journal, which unfortunately, I have not seen, there is comment on this proposal of mine and it is considered to be an interesting idea, so perhaps we may some day return to it.
The Minister will understand that I have mixed feelings about the Bill. I regard it as an important aspect of penal policy to get down the prison population. I do not think that it is any credit to this country that we use imprisonment so much more than most other Western European countries.
The hon. and learned Gentleman accused me earlier of pulling a figure out of the air in respect of the mandatory suspended sentence. At any rate I think he must acknowledge that I showed how small a proportion it would require of those currently receiving mandatory suspended sentences to receive sentences of immediate impirsonment to have a substantial effect on prison receptions. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that when he reads Hansard—I am sure that he reads my speeches afterwards with great attention—he will see that I made no confusion between prison reception and prison population.
This is a Government decision which the country will have cause to regret. I regret that included in a Bill which has so much that holds out the potentiality in

the future to reduce the prison population there should be this one major fault which, as far as I am concerned, outweighs any merit in the rest of the Bill.

4.3 a.m.

Mr. Carlisle: May I say to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) that if I misheard what he said I apologise at once. I know that he fully appreciates the difference between prison population and prison reception. I thought that he had moved from one to the other, but if he says that he did not I accept it.
I thank the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) for the kind words that he said about myself. I have been grateful throughout our proceedings on the Bill for the constructive and thorough manner in which it has been studied by both sides of the House and I am particularly grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and those who were his colleagues on the Committee for their approach to it.
Like all Criminal Justice Bills, it is a certain amount of a patchwork. It has various different provisions which are picked up and are necessary to be reformed and come to light as the years go by, but there are clear themes running through the Bill. It contains many major provisions.
Firstly, it gives a more central position to the compensation of the victim in the sentencing policy of our courts. I believe that that will be welcomed. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it has several new and major experimental provisions. I hope very much that the provisions for community service and for the day training centres will come to be used widely by the courts when the facilities and resources are available and when those powers are available for use by the courts. The Bill also has the original provision for criminal bankruptcy.
The Bill removes what I have always believed was wrong in the 1967 Act, the mandatory provision concerning suspended sentences. It provides, for the first time, for probation and after-care committees to provide hostels. I believe that this will prove a major advance in the establishment of probation hostels for


adults in this country. I have no hesitation in saying now what I said on various occasions in Committee, that I believe that ultimately that may be one of the major provisions of the whole Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he regretted that the Bill did nothing about bail. I draw his attention to the fact that it provides, for the first time, the power for probation committees to set up bail hostels, and power for the Home Office to grant aid them.
The right hon. Gentleman made only one remark that I could not understand. That was when he spoke of the "roaring inflation" of the prison population. I do not take the credit for it, but the fact remains that the prison population today, 38,200, is very nearly 2,000 less than it was two years ago. Curiously enough—I was about to say, "One of the few things", but perhaps I had better not—there has certainly been no inflation in the prison population during that period.
The effect of the Bill will be to help to keep out of prison those who can be more successfully, adequately and affectively dealt with by other methods. I commend the Bill to the House.

4.7 a.m.

Mr. John Roper: The Minister of State drew attention to the fact that the Government has not yet been able to inflate the prison population. Unfortunately, in so far as the Bill makes provision for ending mandatory suspended sentences, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) has shown, the Government are now taking action to add the prison population to the list of all the other things they have inflated during their period of office.
The figure of 2,000 extra prisoners produced by my right hon. Friend indicates the prison population that is to come. Therefore, while there are many things in the Bill which can be welcomed, there is an unfortunate, serious and fundamental flaw, in that prisoners as well as other items will be inflated by the present Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH LIBRARY BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — BRITISH LIBRARY [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a national library for the United Kingdom under the control and management of a new Board and incorporating the Library of the British Museum, and for connected purposes, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) such payments out of moneys provided by Parliament as the Treasury may approve towards expenditure incurred by the new Board, and
(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund, where the Secretary of State so directs, of money received by the Board in any financial year.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Orders of the Day — CHILDREN BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Orders of the Day — CENTRAL LANCASHIRE NEW TOWN

4.9 a.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I have one point to make, and at four o'clock in the morning I shall make it very shortly.
The old towns of North-East Lancashire have always viewed with suspicion, if not hostility, the proposal for a central Lancashire new town. I will not go into the reasons for that hostility and suspicion, except to say that they fear deeply, and always have, that the new town would act as a magnet, sucking off into the new town activity which might otherwise come to Blackburn, Darwen, Accrington, Burnley, and the other established towns of North-East Lancashire.
However, when this Government decided to go ahead with the central Lancashire new town they managed to curb our hostility and to allay some of our suspicions by certain statements that were made relating to the relative preference between the proposed new town and the old towns of North-East Lancashire. On 3rd February, 1971, I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment this question:
Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether the new town itself will have development area status or intermediate status?
My right hon. Friend replied: "No, Sir." Later, in answer to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones), my right hon. Friend said this:
'…the new town will not have intermediate development status, whereas the other towns do…
Finally, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Bray) my right hon. Friend said:
Intermediate towns "—
that is, the towns of North-East Lancashire—
will certainly have priority over new towns, and the new town will not get intermediate status."—[Official Report, 3rd February, 1971; Vol. 810. c. 1677–81.]
One can see why the hostility and suspicion were much allayed, because we in North-East Lancashire were to have an important differential over the proposed new town.
Not much more than 15 months later that differential has been erased and

removed entirely, in spite of those undertakings upon the basis of which the hostility and suspicion and activity of North-East Lancashire were curbed. I understand why the differential has been erased, because many areas in the North-West have now got intermediate status which never had it before.
What I want to do tonight is to ask the Government how they propose to restore that differential, if they do propose to restore it; and, if not, what excuse they have for removing unilaterally what was in those three quotations and in some others something of a solemn assurance.
The North-East Lancashire Development Council wishes North-East Lancashire to be promoted to full development area status, thus preserving something of the differential. Much as I support that, I think that it is unrealistic to expect the Government to do that so soon after they have already been changing the various gradations and areas of the special grants.
My purpose tonight is simply to ask: if that is not possible, what proposals have the Government got to repair a very considerable hole which they have by their own action torn in the delicate balance between North-East Lancashire and the central Lancashire new town. That is the sole purpose of my raising this debate. I shall sit down now, because I know that my hon. Friends whose constituencies are within the boundaries of the proposed central Lancashire new town wish to say a few words. They may be words contrary to the tenor of my remarks, but I shall understand that. I hope that the Minister will give North-East Lancashire some hope. I hope that he will indicate that the Government realise what has happened, that they and they alone have upset the balance, and that he will say what sort of steps they propose to take to restore it.

Miss Mary Holt: I do not understand what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) is talking about when he refers to "repairing the hole". As I understand it, the new proposals and the change to intermediate status for an extensive area—indeed, for the whole of the North-West—under the new proposals, are part of a national strategy by the Government which is designed, first


to produce sustained economic growth, which has been lacking throughout the country, and, secondly, to enable the oportunities offered, by entry into the European Economic Community to be taken.
It seems that the Preston-Chorley-Leyland new town area should be able to take advantage of those opportunities just as the rest of the country has, and should have the same sort of encouragement as other backward areas have had. In fact, the Preston-Chorley-Leyland new town area is like the industrial towns of North-East Lancashire; that is to say, it has lagged behind. It has suffered from depopulation, derelict land problems and old factories.
My own constituency of Preston, North, although prominent in the aviation industry, in which it is probably a world-beating constituency, has attracted virtually no new industries in the last 20 years, although there have been extensive developments with new commercial ventures in the area.
The new town will never get off the ground unless it has equal opportunities with the surrounding areas. I and other hon. Members from this area have been concerned and, indeed, apprehensive, ever since the new town was introduced, that if it did not get equal development status with the surrounding areas we should never attract the industries, and the new town would become nothing more than a dormitory town. Why did the Salmesbury Brewery come to the edge of the new town instead of coming into it? The reason was because the brewery could get almost £3 million in grant because of being just outside the boundary of the new town as against establishing itself within the new town area, which would have been a better site for it from every point of view.
If the new town gets fresh industries it will prove beneficial to the whole of the economy of North-West Lancashire. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen does not take account of the effect that new industries will have. My hon. and learned Friend talks about magnets one way, but they will act as magnets in another direction because new industries require supplies. The aviation industry requires component suppliers. If there is a large population in the new town it will create demand in

the same area in every way. Its massive injection of new capital should prove beneficial to the whole area if it can get off the ground.
However, it will never get off the ground unless it has equal development status with the surrounding areas. It is a fallacy to imagine that the Preston area cannot be brought up to the same level. If it is brought up to the same level it will not in any way prove dangerous or harmful to the rest of Lancashire. Infact, the two parts together are complementary. If we are to get the North-West off the ground, I suggest that the Preston-Chorley-Leyland new town area requires equal development status. I welcome the changes which have been made as does everybody in my constituency.

4.20 a.m.

Mrs. Connie Monks: I remind the House that it is seven years since the Central Lancashire area was designated a new town. Yet it is not enjoying even normal development. Far from gaining advantage from this designation, the whole area has been stultified for seven years.
An increased use of electricity is usually an indication of normal development; but the amount of electricity used is about 8 per cent. down. To give the area intermediate status was the least the Government could do to make up for these seven years of stagnation. We have had no wish to compete with East Lancashire, but should like to see both areas prosper together.

4.21 a.m.

Mr. John Roper: I felt for a moment a little earlier that I had stumbled on a family quarrel; but I do not think it need be a quarrel among those of us in the North-West, because we are all united in wanting to see rejuvenation of the region which has suffered in many ways in recent years and has many common problems.
I was glad that the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) did not oppose the development of the new town because, as the North-West Economic Planning Council has said, the new town can be the cornerstone of the redevelopment of our region. However, it is vitally important that we should have proper and selective measures dealing with the specific needs of different


parts of Lancashire so that we can have both redevelopment of the old towns, such as Farnworth and Kearsley in my constituency and those of North-East Lancashire, and at the same time, as a centre for self-sustaining growth and to restructure the industrial base of Lancashire, the imaginative concept of the new town.

4.22 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I welcome the choice of subject for this debate by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). It has given hon. Members the opportunity to explain their views on this important project and, in particular, to ventilate some of their worries. It has given me a clearer understanding of what these worries are about; and I am glad to take this opportunity to reply. I will answer hon. Members' points so far as I can tonight, but if a point raised by an hon. Member in the debate seems to need further reply, I will gladly write to that hon. Member about it later.
My aim is to remove as many misconceptions as possible about this Central Lancashire new town project. It would not be useful to take up too much time tonight in repeating the well-tried and well-ventilated arguments which led my right hon. Friend in 1971 to make a start with the Central Lancashire new town project; but it is worth taking a very little time to remind the House of several very basic facts.
The overall case for the new town is certainly no less valid today, and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Housing and Construction, in answer to Questions in the House on 16th February and 24th May this year, have both made abundantly clear their continued support for it.
The North-West is still the most densely populated region in the country and the future quality of life there depends upon a properly planned approach to the use of land. Even with downward revisions in the light of the latest data, the population of the North-West region can be expected to grow by about 175,000 to 200,000 over this decade and we cannot afford to assume that growth thereafter will not be of a similar order of

magnitude, even with a substantial migration right out of the region.
To put the proposal into perspective, the present population in the North-West region is 6·7 million and that of the North-East sub-region is 475,000. The designated area of the new town should by the end of the century—I stress as far ahead as the end of the century-contain about 430,000 of whom 230,000 are in the area already.
Without proper provision for the relief of pressure for new housing from this increasing population, the quality of life in the most densely populated parts of the region is bound to suffer. The location of the Central Lancashire new town meets this requirement admirably. It was not chosen without very detailed studies but there are obvious salient features.
For example, from the regional point of view, the most outstanding characteristic of the new town is its central position and its remarkable accessibility. This is a site with road links of motorway standard with Glasgow to the north, Huddersfield to the east, Bristol in the southwest and, of course, through the Midlands to London. It also lies on the main London—Glasgow railway, soon to be electrified throughout.
The new town must be seen as a point of focus and stimulus to attract into the whole of this region, with its very high standards of communication and with new investment of an order which could not be expected to come to the region at all without the planned stimulus of the new town. I very much agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Miss Holt).
So the need for the new town remains clear: but there are other major issues more pertinent in many ways to the points raised by hon. Members tonight. First, there is the question of timing. I should make it very clear that we are talking about a project the main impact of which will not come until the 1980s. Our hope is that, long before then, a number of the problems in neighbouring areas will be looking very different.
Because the new town is still very young, we cannot deal with the project in detail tonight because, quite simply, the details do not exist. The members of the corporation were appointed about


a year ago; the general manager six months ago; his chief officers took their posts three months ago. Their first main task is to make a strategic plan of action and to submit it for my right hon. Friend's approval.
There have of course been extensive and detailed preliminary studies by consultants, commissioned in advance by my right hon. Friend and our predecessors, which are now at the disposal of the corporation. But the corporation will also consult and collaborate with the appropriate local authorities and statutory undertakers, taking full account of the latest planning data and forecasts; and, as the strategic plan emerges, there will be publicity and a chance for the public's reaction to be tested—I know that this will please my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mrs. Monks)—and opinions considered.
All this means that there will be ample opportunity for discussion of the eventual plan and the forecasts on which it will be based; and, indeed, for the corporation to take account of points raised here by hon. Members: but it is already possible to see the guidelines which the corporation is developing for itself.
The corporation's primary function will be to draw up the strategic plan and to provide for the assembly and marketing of the land and basic services necessary to ensure rapid and co-ordinated development. Beyond these stages the emphasis will be on bringing in the private sector to the greatest practicable extent, with the bulk of the new housing in the shape of private development making the fullest use of the corporation's special facilities and overall co-ordination and of the know-how of private enterprise.
In advance of this master plan, the corporation hopes to be promoting certain interim schemes for housing, employment and shopping, to help the area to keep pace with immediate requirements. But these will not be the major development. That, as I have already said, will be realised in the 1980s. I hope that that helps to reassure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen.
I turn now to some of the special points raised, possibly by implication, by hon. Members. One of the serious ones concerned employment. The North-West has an unemployment level above the

national average and both Central and North-East Lancashire have an over-narrow industrial base. It will be a major function of the new town to put this right by providing a point of attraction for new and diversified sources of employment which otherwise would not have come to the region at all, and to do this in a location away from the congested Mersey belt. I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North. I thought she developed powerful arguments in support of Government policy and I also appreciated the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley.
The Government look upon a new town as a source of benefit to the older towns rather than the reverse. It is not true that the impact of the new towns was not properly studied. The previous Government commissioned detailed studies of the impact of the new town, particularly in North-East Lancashire and the issue was fully considered by the Government before the decision to go ahead. The Government are satisfied that the general effect of the inflow of investment to the new town—some £500 million by the end of the century from the public and private sectors—will be beneficial to the region as a whole and it will also be beneficial to the people of North-East Lancashire. In particular, the new town is expected to stimulate during the 1980s those parts of North-East Lancashire which will have started on the road to recovery during the 1970s.
The phasing and routing of the Calder Valley fast route have been reviewed with this in mind. Schemes are already in the pipeline which are aimed at providing the "fast route" Calder Valley road from the new town at the M6/M1 interchange, through south Blackburn, Burnley and on towards Colne. The route as far as Burnley should be completed by 1978 and the rest as soon as possible thereafter.
There is already evidence of movement northwards from the heavily congested Mersey and Manchester industrial belt in search of a better environment. It is essential that any consequential build-up of development in mid-Lancashire should be comprehensively planned so as to protect the very environment the


newcomers are seeking. A new town is a powerful instrument of protection whilst at the same time efficiently satisfying the demand. The all-too-familiar alternative would be suburban sprawl around the existing towns which could neither satisfactorily meet the demand nor be good for those towns themselves.
It will be for the corporation to assess the likely incidence of commuting between the new town and the neighbouring older towns and cities and to cater for it where it means greater and more diverse job opportunities and is otherwise consistent with good planning principles. Communications in the area are good and will be better, so people may well be ready to undertake longer journeys to work, either to or from the new town. Central Lancashire already has good motorway and trunk road connections with Liverpool and Manchester, and the new Calder Valley road improvements will open up the old industrial towns of North-East Lancashire.
The Government are determined to promote and sustain faster economic growth to attack the serious problems of continuing regional imbalance. We expect Central Lancashire and its surrounding areas to benefit fully from the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 21st March. When the new town was set up it had no assisted area status. But with the extension of that status to the whole of the North-West, in order to meet a changed general situation, it would have been clearly inappropriate to have excluded the 250,000 people already

living in the new town area from these benefits.
My hon. and learned Friend will understand that the points he raised about development area status in North-East Lancashire are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I cannot answer them tonight. Both North-East and Central Lancashire have inherited from the decline of the textile industry a legacy of old, worn-out premises. The new building grants we have announced will provide a unique opportunity for industrial renovation in both areas.
To sum up, there is an unanswerable general case for the Central Lancashire new town as a nucleus for planned future housing development in a crowded region—and as a magnet for much investment which would otherwise be lost to that region. The exact pattern of the town, the major assumptions and forecasts, the infrastructure, the relationship of houses and jobs and the social facilities have all yet to be crystallised. They will be open to public comment and consideration of opinions before decisions are reached on the major implications or the special effect on this or that individual locality. There can be no doubt that this project, which is likely to bring an injection of about £500 million of public and private capital into Lancashire, will be of overall long-term benefit to the general economy of the county and a stimulus to the surrounding areas.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Five o'clock a.m